File - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Transcription

World Heritage
34
papers
World Heritage in a Sea of Islands
Pacific 2009 Programme
World Heritage in a Sea of Islands
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP France
Tel : 33 (0)1 42 68 15 71
Fax : 33 (0)1 45 68 55 70
E-mail : [email protected]
http://whc.unesco.org
© UNESCO 2012
All rights reserved
ISBN: 978-982-225-015-2 (Print version)
ISBN: 978-982-225-016-9 (Electronic version)
The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and for the
opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the organization.
Editing: Anita Smith La Trobe University, Australia
Coordination of the World Heritage Papers Series: Vesna Vujicic-Lugassy, UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Graphic Design: Original design by Recto Verso
Design/Layout: Warren Field
Front cover photo: The Rock Islands of Palau inscribed on the World Heritage List as a mixed property in
2012 © Stuart Chape
Printed in Thailand
APIA/12/037-200
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those individuals and organisations including
ICOMOS Pasifika, the Pacific Islands Museums Association, and the Secretariat
of the Pacific Community who contributed content, professional expertise and
images to the volume.
We wish also to recognise the warm hospitality of the communities of the
Pacific Islands who have hosted the many activities associated with the World
Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme and pay our respects to Sir Tumu Te Heuheu,
Chair of the World Heritage Committee in 2007, who has been an inspirational
leader for the Pacific region.
We also acknowledge the efforts of staff in the UNESCO Office for the Pacific
States, Samoa in particular Akatsuki Takahashi and Diana Roma in initiating and
managing this project.
We are very appreciative of the assistance provided by the Australian Funds in
Trust towards the development, finalization and printing of this volume.
The proposal for this volume of World Heritage Papers was accepted for publication by UNESCO following approval by the UNESCO Publications Board. The
draft manuscript was peer reviewed by three independent reviewers: Professor
Richard Engelhardt, Dr Kate Feros and Dr Frank Thomas. We are grateful for
their insightful and considered comments.
contents
FOREWORD
Kishore Rao, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
S E C T IO N 1
S ECT ION 2
Introduction: World Heritage in the
Pacific Islands
A Sea of Islands: Diverse Values and
Interconnected Histories
The World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme
Anita Smith
Thematic Frameworks for the cultural values of the Pacific
Ian Lilley and Christophe Sand
.................................................................................... 2
.................................................................................. 22
Extract from The Pacific Appeal to the
World Heritage Committee
Pacific Islands World Heritage Tentative Lists
Paul Dingwall
.................................................................................... 2
.................................................................................. 28
The World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme: addressing
the aims of the global strategy in the Pacific region
Giovanni Boccardi
eveloping the Solomon Islands Tentative List
D
Salamat Ali Tabbasum
.................................................................................. 12
World Heritage Convention and Intangible Heritage
Convention in the Pacific
Akatsuki Takahashi
.................................................................................. 16
.................................................................................. 34
The Cook Islands
Justina Nicholas and Ngatuaine Maui
.................................................................................. 39
Natural World Heritage in Oceania: Challenges and
Opportunities
Stuart Chape
.................................................................................. 40
ikini Atoll: A small remote atoll of global significance
B
Nicole Baker
.................................................................................. 46
Levuka, Fiji: The Heritage of Culture Contact in the Pacific
Anita Smith, Sipiriano Nemani and Anaseini Kalougata
.................................................................................. 52
Transnational Values in the development of a
World Heritage nomination for the Sacred site of
Taputapuätea/Te Po, Valley of Öpoa, French Polynesia
Ariihau Richard Tuheiava and Anita Smith
.................................................................................. 54
Yapese Stone Money: A Transboundary Serial
Nomination from Micronesia
.................................................................................. 57
World Heritage
34
papers
S E C T IO N 3
World Heritage and Community in the Pacific
ommunity and governance in the World Heritage
C
property of East Rennell
Kasia Gabrys and Mike Heywood
.................................................................................. 60
Australia Capacity Building Support for East Rennell
World Heritage Area 2007-2013
International Heritage Section, Government of Australia
.................................................................................. 66
ommunity as the First C: Conservation and Development
C
through Tourism at Chief Roi Mata’s Domain, Vanuatu
Meredith Wilson, Chris Ballard, Richard Matanik
and Topie Warry
.................................................................................. 68
The Ancient Royal Tombs of Lapaha, Tonga:
Community and World Heritage
Geoffrey Clark, Christian Reepmeyer and Nivaleti Melekiola
.................................................................................. 74
ommunity Participatory Approach to Heritage
C
Conservation in Samoa
Elisaia Talouli and Tuiolo Schuster
.................................................................................. 78
Samoan Women: Preservers of their cultural heritage
Luagalau Fo’isagaasina Eteuati Shon
.................................................................................. 82
S ECT ION 4
Building Capacity for World Heritage
in the Pacific
Building Regional Capacity for World Heritage
in the Pacific Islands: toward a Pacific Heritage Hub
Anita Smith and Meretui Ratunabuabua
.................................................................................. 90
ICOMOS Pasifika
.................................................................................. 95
Safeguarding Nan Madol, Federated States of Micronesia
Diana Roma
.................................................................................. 96
Building institutional and community capacity for
World Heritage in Papua New Guinea: The Kuk
Early Agricultural Site and Beyond
Tim Denham
.................................................................................. 98
The Kokoda Initiative, Papua New Guinea
Australian Kokoda Taskforce Secretariat
................................................................................ 104
UNESCO’s World Heritage Programme for Small Island
Developing States and the Global Strategy
Ron van Oers
................................................................................ 108
Niue: a small island state in West Polynesia
Moira Enetama
................................................................................ 112
Author biodata
................................................................................ 114
Published within the World Heritage Series
................................................................................ 116
F oreword
“World Heritage in a Sea of Islands:
The Pacific 2009 Programme”
by the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
The Pacific region covers about one third of total surface area of the earth and comprises over one
thousand islands and atolls. This reservoir and the wealth of cultural and natural diversity and traditional knowledge is first and foremost a living heritage. The region’s Indigenous communities are
playing an important role as its custodians.
As most of the Pacific small islands joined UNESCO in the 1980s and 1990s and ratified the World
Heritage Convention after the year 2000, their experience in international cooperation for heritage
protection is relatively recent. Being a State Party to the World Heritage Convention provided an
opportunity for these islands and territories to protect their rich cultural and natural heritage against
environmental threats and development pressure, while re-establishing crucial socio-cultural ties and
exchanges among Pacific Island nations.
Until recently, the Pacific Island countries were represented on the World Heritage List by one single
property only: East Rennell in the Solomon Islands, inscribed in 1998. The Pacific Island countries
and their heritage experts soon understood the need to devise a more coordinated and strategic
approach to ensure the protection of their heritage at the international level through the World
Heritage Programme.
The World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme (2003-2009) was adopted at the 27th session of the
World Heritage Committee in 2003 as a strategic regional initiative. It established clear and priority
actions to be undertaken to achieve concrete results in the protection and management of Pacific
heritage, as determined directly by the countries and territories concerned. The progamme set out
the responsibilities of stakeholders and a timeframe for execution. This regional approach has been
successfully implemented and followed-up by the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan (2010-2015),
which places a strong emphasis on capacity building as well as community participation. It has
encountered such great success, to a large degree, because it took into account the aspirations of
the Pacific countries and peoples to achieve sustainable development through the safeguarding of
their irreplaceable heritage. Thanks to this programme, the number of sites from the Pacific region
inscribed on the World Heritage List has increased from one to five.
This year, to mark the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention, governments, institutions
and individuals around the world are celebrating “World Heritage and Sustainable Development: the
Role of Local Communities.” Consistent with this theme, the present publication explores the following three key components of World Heritage: ‘Diverse Values and Interconnected Histories’,‘Being
Community in the Pacific’ and ‘Building Capacity.’ It highlights case studies in Vanuatu, the Solomon
Islands, Tonga, Palau and the Marshall Islands et al. Thanks to this new publication, the pioneering
efforts by all those involved in the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme will be fully recognized.
Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the Government of Australia for generously providing the
financial support for this publication through the UNESCO/Australian Funds-in-Trust co-operation.
Kishore Rao
Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Introduction:
World Heritage in the
Pacific Islands
© Stuart Chape
1b
The World Heritage
Anita Smith, La Trobe University, Australia
At the 31st meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand in 2007,
representatives of the Pacific Island States Parties
made a presentation to the World Heritage Committee
known as the ‘Pacific Appeal’. This was a milestone in
the five-year World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme.
The Appeal was both a request to the World Heritage
Committee and the global community for recognition
of the special needs of the Pacific Island countries in
implementing the World Heritage Convention and a
powerful statement of regional cultural identity and
the unique contribution the Pacific Island countries
and territories make to global heritage.
Excerpt from ‘The Pacific
Appeal’ to the World Heritage
Committee, Christchurch,
Aotearoa/New Zealand 2007
(WHC-07/31.COM/11C)
The Pacific is unique ...
There are unique features of the Pacific region
that enrich the World Heritage community,
and these include:
• the region having one of the highest proportions of indigenous peoples within national
populations in any region of the world;
• h
aving amongst the highest proportion of
people living within traditional governance
systems of any region of the world;
• h
aving amongst the highest proportion of
land and sea remaining under traditional
management of any region of the world;
• o
ne of the lowest population densities of
any inhabited region of the world;
• c lose and continuing genealogical connections between peoples across vast areas and
between many countries and territories;
• t raditional heritage management practices
that reinforce the inseparable relationship
between communities, cultures and environment that underpin sustainable development;
• a n enormous wealth of cultural diversity, as
well as island and marine biodiversity, much
of which is endemic, covering one third of
the earth’s surface
These unique features underpin the Pacific contribution to the World Heritage community.
2
Wor ld H eritage in a Sea of Isl ands: Pacific 2009 Programme
For us, indigeneity is inseparable from
heritage. Our indigeneity has the following
characteristics…
• H
eritage in the Pacific defines our cultural
identity and remains inseparable from our
social, economic and environmental wellbeing, now and for future generations;
• T he UNESCO Asia-Pacific region is so broad
that it masks issues that are specifically relevant to the Pacific region;
• T here is limited effective capacity for implementation of the World Heritage Convention due to:
O
• O
ur heritage is holistic, embracing all life,
both tangible and intangible, and is understood through our cultural traditions;
• There is an inseparable connection between
the outstanding seascapes and landscapes
in the Pacific Islands region, which are
woven together by the rich cultural, historical and genealogical relationships of Pacific
Island peoples;
• The region contains a series of spectacular
and highly powerful spiritually-valued natural features and cultural places. These places
are related to the origins of peoples, the
land and sea, and other sacred stories;
• T he Pacific is a region of distinct and diverse
responses to oceanic environments;
• P rotection of our heritage must be based
on respect for and understanding and maintenance of the traditional cultural practices,
indigenous knowledge and systems of land
and sea tenure in the Pacific.
1b
O
ur scale, limited resources and relaO
tive isolation which have limited our
access to information and assistance,
and our ability to participate in global
forums;
T he people in the region who are
represented by State Parties located
outside the region are limited in their
capacity to have sites inscribed on
the List;
• T here are limited resources and skilled
human and institutional capacities to manage effectively the region’s cultural and
natural heritage;
• T he Pacific faces a greater threat from external challenges, especially climate change,
than do most other regions of the world,
and is less able to deal with the impacts of
these threats;
• F or these reasons the Pacific is the least represented region on the World Heritage List.
The Pacific faces special challenges related to
heritage….
• There is limited awareness of Pacific heritage
outside the region;
• T here is a lack of adequate representation of
the special and unique characteristics of the
Pacific Islands region in the World Heritage
system;
3
1b
Map of the Pacific Island nations and territories. Pacific States Parties to the World Heritage Convention are shown in bold and Pacific
Island territories in italics.
The Pacific Appeal was written by representatives of the
Pacific Island countries at Tongariro National Park, Aotearoa/
New Zealand in February 2007 under the leadership of Sir
Tumu te Heuheu, Paramount chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa
Maori tribe and Chair of the World Heritage Committee.
The Appeal stresses that the diverse and interconnected
histories and cultures of the Pacific Island peoples that have
created their landscapes and seascapes and are sustained
by systems of customary land tenure that underpin the
livelihoods of most Pacific Island communities. At the same
time the Appeal stresses the need for resources and capacity building to successfully implement the Convention and
to increase the representation of the region on the World
Heritage List. These issues frame this collection of papers
under the theme of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme, established by the World Heritage Committee in
2003 to promote the World Heritage Convention in the
Pacific which continues to be geo-cultural region least represented on the World Heritage List.
The Pacific region spans one third of the globe and
contains the cultural and natural heritage of more than a
thousand islands ranging from the continental islands of
New Zealand and Papua New Guinea to the tiny remote
atolls of the central and east Pacific Ocean. This oceanic
world has given rise to traditional indigenous ways of life
that are unique to the region and expressed through outstanding cultural landscapes and seascapes, settlements
and monuments and in the intangible heritage of traditions, knowledge, stories and song. This heritage reflects
the common origin and interaction of many Pacific Island
societies and the distinct traditional social structures that
4
have developed in each archipelago. These societies include
the linguistically diverse communities of Melanesia in the
south west Pacific, speakers of the great family of Polynesian languages in the archipelagos to the east south and
north extremities of the Pacific Islands whose histories tell
of a single homeland and the Micronesians whose traditional navigational and seafaring skills have enabled them
to thrive on the tiny isolated islands of the north central
Pacific. Across this Oceanic world there is great diversity in
the lands, the communities and the values of the region
but also common bonds – the sea, shared histories, shared
identities and shared issues that these developing countries
face in the protection and management of their heritage.
The Pacific region also has some of the richest complexes
of terrestrial and marine ecosystems on Earth, with habitats ranging from mountain forest ecosystems in Papua
New Guinea and the Solomon Islands to small volcanic
islands and low lying coral atolls of which there are over
7500. The ocean supports the most extensive and diverse
coral reefs in the world, the largest tuna fishery, the deepest oceanic trenches and the healthiest and in some cases,
largest remaining populations of many globally rare and
threatened species including whales, sea turtles, dugongs
and saltwater crocodiles.1
1. T he Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program <http://
www.sprep.org/index.php>
When the World Heritage Committee adopted the World
Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme in 2003 most Pacific
Island nations2 had ratified the Convention during the previous decade3 however they were represented on the World
Heritage List by only a single property – East Rennell in the
Solomon Islands inscribed under natural criteria in 1998.
By 2012 this number has increased to five with the inscription of Chief Roi Mata’s Domain (Vanuatu, 2009); Kuk Early
Agricultural Site (Papua New Guinea, 2009); Bikini Atoll
(Republic of the Marshall Islands, 2010); and Phoenix Island
Protected Area (Kiribati, 2010)4. Over the same period,
seven of the Pacific Island nations submitted their Tentative Lists, leaving only three countries – Niue, Kiribati and
Cook Islands who are yet to do so. World Heritage nominations are being developed by Fiji, Palau, Federated States of
Micronesia and the Kingdom of Tonga. Palau and Fiji have
recently submitted nominations to the World Heritage Centre. While these benchmarks indicate considerable progress
in the implementation of the Convention in the Pacific
nations, perhaps more importantly they are underpinned
by the efforts of communities, governments and regional
organisations to protect the heritage of the Pacific Islands.
This volume celebrates these efforts and achievements.
by around 4 per cent in the Solomon Islands and between
5 per cent in Papua New Guinea between 1990 and 2010
(Asian Development Bank, 2011:103). While much cultural
heritage may be protected by the continuing traditions and
land use practices and customary land tenures much is also
being impacted and lost through unsustainable resource
exploitation and loss of traditional knowledge accompanying rapid social and economic change and the relocation
of people from rural to urban centres. In most Pacific Island
States, the urban population has increased by 5-10 per
cent in the past two decades although it should be noted
that in Samoa and Papua New Guinea there has been a
slight decrease in the percentage of urban dwellers. The
region is also facing increasing economic and social pressure from increasing island populations and an aging population6. These pressures are likely to be exacerbated by
sea level rise and increasingly severe storms and cyclones
associated with climate change (Australian Bureau of
Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation, 2011), placing further stress on the
small island Pacific economies and communities including
Tuvalu, Kiribati and Tokelau and increasingly, coastal communities and traditional land use across the region.
It should also be recognized that these achievements have
taken place in the context of the many challenges the
region faces. Across this vast area, populations are on the
whole small although increasing, and many are relatively
isolated. Most Pacific Island States are economically underdeveloped. Five Pacific Island States – Kiribati, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu – are included on
United Nation’s 2011 list of Least Developed Countries.5
Unemployment or underemployment has been identified
as the biggest challenge facing the Pacific region in a
recent report by the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2007). Many people
wish to have greater access to the cash economy and the
benefits of education, healthcare and opportunities that
are available in more developed countries. The exploitation of natural resources provides one of the few avenues
through which communities may engage in the global
economy but in many places adequate legal protection and
community safeguards against the over- or unsustainable
exploitation of these resources are lacking. Key Indicators
for Asia and the Pacific indicate a forested land decreased
Background to the World Heritage Pacific
2009 Programme
2. T he fourteen self-governing Pacific Island nations are Fiji, Nauru, Tonga,
Samoa, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated
States of Micronesia and Palau. Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand,
also Pacific countries, were donors and hosted workshops during the
World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme. The Pacific Island territories of
France (French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna) the USA
(Guam, Northern Marianas, American Samoa, Hawai’ian Islands), Chile
(Rapa Nui) and United Kingdom (Pitcairn Group) were not direct beneficiaries of the programme although representatives of some of these
territories participated in activities.
3. Only Nauru and Tuvalu have not ratified the Convention.
4. In Lagoons of New Caledonia: Reef Diversity and Associated Ecosystem,
France 2010 Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument in
Hawai’i, United States of America, was also inscribed as a Native Hawaiian, Polynesian cultural landscape.
5. <http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/least_developed_countries.htm>
In 1998, with the support of the New Zealand Government
through its NZAid programme the site of East Rennell Island
in the Solomon Islands was inscribed as the first World Heritage property in the Pacific Island nations. The property was
inscribed under natural Criterion ix being ‘a stepping stone in
the migration and evolution of species in the western Pacific
and important site for the science of island biogeography’.
East Rennell was also the first natural property to be inscribed
under customary ownership and management, represent-
1b
The impetus for a regional World Heritage Strategy for the
Pacific that became known as the World Heritage Pacific
2009 Programme arose from the World Heritage Committee’s Global Strategy to redress the imbalances and lack
of global representivity of the World Heritage List (Boccardi this volume). In 1997 when the first Global Strategy
Meeting for the Pacific region was held in Suva, Fiji, of the
fourteen Pacific Island countries only Fiji, Solomon Islands
and Papua New Guinea were signatories to the World Heritage Convention. Of these three, only Fiji had submitted a
Tentative List. There were no World Heritage inscriptions
from these countries although the region was represented
on the List through the inscription of several properties in
the Pacific territories of non-local State Parties. Rapa Nui or
Easter Island had been inscribed as a Chilean property in
1995; the Hawaiian Island Volcanoes National Park in the
United States of America in 1987; and the United Kingdom
property of Henderson Island in 1988 being one of four
islands making up the territory of Pitcairn Islands.
6. T he percentage of the population over the age of 65 in most Pacific
Islands is expected to more than double by 2050 p.130.
5
ing a milestone in the history of the Convention (see Gabrys
this volume) and preempting what would become a core
theme of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme, that
of respect for customary land tenures and the rights and
responsibilities of communities and in particular indigenous
communities in the World Heritage system.
The Suva meeting in 1997 was followed by the 2nd Global
Strategy meeting in the Pacific, held in Port Vila, Vanuatu
in 1999 the recommendations of which stressed the need
for desktop studies of potential World Heritage properties
in the region and the development of educational materials
to promote the region’s heritage and the potential benefits
for communities and governments in implementing the
Convention. The recommendations of these initial regional
meetings were consolidated in a third meeting was held in
Apia, Samoa in 2003 as part of the Periodic Reporting cycle
for the Asia Pacific region (UNESCO, 2004 Annex 4). The
objective of the workshop was to build professional and
institutional capacity of the Pacific Island States to promote
the implementation of the Convention. Although by this
time most Pacific Island nations had ratified the World Heritage Convention implementation levels remained low due
to lack of awareness, resources and capacity within individual countries and the region as a whole. In response Pacific
Island representatives at the Apia meeting recommended a
Pacific sub-regional World Heritage Programme be developed to address the common issues in heritage management and protection in the Pacific Islands. The World Heritage Committee agreed and at their 27th meeting in Paris
in 2003 they adopted the ‘World Heritage – Pacific 2009
Programme’ (Decision 27COM 20B.4) to focus specifically
on the Pacific Island countries with the following aims:
• E nsure full membership of the World Heritage
Convention in the Pacific to strengthen a collaborative sub-regional approach to implementation;
• R
aise awareness about the World Heritage
Convention and the potential benefits of World
Heritage in the Pacific;
• B
uild capacity for the preparation of Tentative Lists
and nominations of properties for inclusion in the
World Heritage List;
• E nsure the representation of the Pacific cultural and
natural heritage on the World Heritage List within
the framework of the Global Strategy for a credible,
balanced and representative World Heritage List;
• Promote
trans-boundary and/or serial marine and
terrestrial nominations including serial cultural
landscape projects; and
• B
uild partnerships with Government organizations,
NGOs, international and multilateral organizations
and donors for assistance in the implementation of
the WH Convention in the Pacific.
In late 2003 Aotearoa/New Zealand was elected to the
World Heritage Committee and in October 2004 hosted a
meeting of representatives of Pacific Island States and terri
6
tories at Tongariro National Park (inscribed on the World
Heritage List as an associative cultural landscape under
Criterion vi in 1993 and previously as a natural property
under Criteria vii and viii in 1990) to develop a plan for
implementation of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme, known as the Action Plan World Heritage Pacific
2009 Programme. For many at the meeting this was their
first introduction to the World Heritage Convention. Over
five days of discussions a large number of programmes and
projects were put forward by individual countries and for
the region as a whole that were consolidated in an Action
Plan that would to guide Pacific Island States in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention over a 5 year
period until 2009. Key to the success of the plan was the
building of networks within the region that would enable
sharing of skills, knowledge and experience and regional
meetings to facilitate this sharing and maximize resources.
In developing this plan, the experts representing the Pacific
countries and territories sought to ensure that the plan
would reflect the special circumstances which impact on
implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the
region and in their respective countries. In particular, they
recognised that:
• P acific Island countries and territories generally
have very small land areas and populations
(although very large sea areas).
• H
eritage management agencies are small, handle
many functions, and have very limited resources.
• D
istances between countries are enormous,
and travel can be a significant cost for activities.
• C
ommunication between isolated areas impacts
on implementation timetables.
• D
ecisions concerning sites require extensive
consultation because most land (and sea) is held
under customary ownership (UNESCO, 2004:1)
The Action Plan included among a wide range of initiatives
many national training and awareness raising initiatives, international twinning opportunities for site managers for Pacific
and several regional and sub-regional meetings to address
specific issues in the implementation of the Convention in
the region (see UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2009)7.
In 2005 a regional meeting was held in Port Vila, Vanuatu, to
develop a thematic framework for World Cultural Heritage
in the Pacific. The main objective of the workshop is to reach
an agreement on serial and transnational or transboundary
cultural themes to assist the Pacific Island countries in developing their Tentative Lists. Following the recommendations
7. O
ther regional and sub-regional meetings around World Heritage include
‘Our Sea of islands’ A Regional Forum for Oceania on Marine Managed
Areas and World Heritage held in Hawai’i in 2007, under the auspices of
the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
UNESCO World Heritage Centre’s Marine Programme and a Study Tour
for Leaders from Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau to Tongariro
National Park, New Zealand, 2007.
of this meeting, two thematic studies have been undertaken
by ICOMOS (Smith and Jones 2007; Lilley, ed. 2010 and see
Lilley and Sand this volume) to assist Pacific States Parties
in identifying values and properties of potential outstanding universal value and potential transnational nominations
and provide a basis for comparative analyses to support the
nomination of cultural properties from the region (UNESCO,
2005; http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/183/).
In the following year, 2006, in Apia, Samoa, a Capacity-Building Workshop was held for Cultural and Natural Heritage
Professionals from Niue, Samoa and Tonga to assist them in
the preparation of Tentative Lists and World Heritage nominations (http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/270/). Following
this workshop, in 2007 the Kingdoms of Tonga and Samoa
submitted their tentative lists following extensive community
consultation and awareness raising projects in both countries
(see Clark et al and Talouli and Schuster this volume).
In the lead up to the 31st World Heritage Committee meeting in Christchurch in 2007, Aotearoa/New Zealand again
hosted a regional workshop at Tongariro National Park.
The primary objectives of the workshop were to develop
a Pacific position paper to be presented at Christchurch,
discuss progress with the 2009 Action Plan; and hold practical capacity-building workshops for participants and to
discuss the theme of Indigeneity as it applies to ‘Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage in the Pacific’. It was
at this meeting that representatives of the Pacific nations
drafted the Pacific Appeal to the World Heritage Committee (WHC-07/31.COM/11C) discussed above.
In 2008 Australia hosted a Pacific Islands World Heritage
Workshop for representatives from fourteen Pacific Island
countries at Cairns that objectives of which were to build
capacity/skill in development of management plans and
systems for cultural and natural heritage, to share best
practice management lessons learnt; to review progress
in the implementation of the World Heritage Pacific 2009
Programme and to draft a further Action Plan for the Pacific
for 2010-2015 (http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/496/):
What has happened with World Heritage [since 2004) is
really the process, the ways we go about conserving the
sites so although we are not actually getting [places] listed
at the moment, its the processes the ways we are actually
getting communities and building capacity
(Interview with Adi Mere Ratunabuabua recorded at Cairns,
available on http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/496/).
To review the Cairns draft Action Plan 2010-2015, Pacific
representatives met again in 2009 at the Pacific Islands
World Heritage Workshop on Maupiti Island in French
Polynesia hosted by France with support of the AustralianFunds-In Trust (http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/609/). A
key outcome of the meeting was the development and
adoption of the ‘Ocean Declaration’ emphasizing the cultural links amongst the peoples of the Pacific that extend
beyond the artificial boundaries of the current geopolitical
system, and reinforces the ocean as being intrinsic to the
identity, ways of life, values, knowledge and practices of
Pacific peoples. The Declaration calls on the international
community ‘to join and protect, manage, maintain and
sustain the cultural and natural integrity of the ocean for
our ancestors and future generations.’8
The successor draft Action Plan 2010-2015 for World Heritage in the Pacific was subsequently finalised and agreed at
the Pacific Regional World Heritage Workshop in Apia, Samoa
in September 2001 and will guide national and regional programmes over the coming years (UNESCO, 2012).
Throughout the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme,
in regional workshops, in country reports and in discussions
around the development of Tentative lists and nominations
three key themes or issues consistently emerged and continue to frame the engagement of individual countries with
the World Heritage process and to shape the programmes
and outcomes of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme namely:
• T he region’s heritage is characterized by both
diverse values and the shared histories and cultural
identities of many Pacific Island communities;
• P acific communities and their customary systems of
land and sea tenure underpin the protection, governance and management of heritage places
and values;
• L ack of national and community capacity, resources
and formal training limit implementation of the
Convention and more generally the protection and
management of the heritage in the Pacific Islands.
These three themes have been used to structure the papers
presented in this volume.
The interconnected histories, diverse and
shared values of Pacific countries
The importance of the shared histories and contemporary
regional identity of Pacific Islanders in the conservation and
management of the region’s heritage was clear from the first
Global Strategy meeting in the Pacific in Suva in 1997. At
this meeting representatives of Pacific Island nations noted:
[The] inseparable connection between the outstanding
seascapes and landscapes of the Pacific Islands region
which are woven together by the rich histories, oral and
life traditions of the Pacific Island peoples. These elements
comprise the cultural heritage of the region which while
diverse are nevertheless bound through voyaging, kinship,
trade and other relationships (UNESCO, 1997).
The Pacific Islands are not only a geographic region bound
by the Pacific Ocean but a cultural region in which heritage
8. F ull text of the Ocean Declaration is available from http://www.temanaotemoana.org/UserFiles/File/Maupiti%20Ocean%20Declaration-Final.pdf
7
values are characterized not only by ancestral and contemporary genealogical connections, voyaging networks
and traditional systems of trade and exchange but also
an extraordinary cultural and linguistic diversity and the
specific histories of islands and archipelagos. During the
World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme both the interconnected histories and cultural diversity of the region have
been articulated by Pacific communities and illustrated
through thematic studies that point to shared origins and
shared values (Lilley and Sand this volume). The histories
and values that Polynesian communities share across international boundaries have been emphasised in the outstanding universal values of Papahanaumokuakea National
Marine Monument in Hawai’i and the development of a
transnational nomination for Taputapuatea/Te Po, valley
of Opoa in French Polynesia (see Tuiheiva and Smith this
volume). Past and continuing voyaging and interactions
between Pacific Island communities further reinforce the
shared values of the region and have been recognised as
key to the outstanding universal values of the region in the
transboundary nomination of Yapese Stone Money by the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau
and in Tentative lists of several Pacific nations (see Dingwall
and Section 2 of this volume).
The cultural diversity of Melanesia has not yet been reflected
though inscriptions on the World Heritage List or the Tentative Lists of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands
which lack detail of Indigenous cultural values where they
have been argued to be of potential outstanding universal
value for the properties listed (see Tabassum this volume).
Despite this the cultural property of Kuk Early Agricultural
Site was Papua New Guinea’s World Heritage property in
which the outstanding universal values are associated with
the independent development of agriculture in Melanesia
in turn locating the values of the property as a unique
Pacific expression of the global narrative of emergence of
agricultural subsistence in the human past.
Similarly in the contemporary, post-colonial Pacific a regional
identity is reinforced by shared histories and experiences in
the recent past that tie the region to international processes
and events. These are reflected in the cultural properties
nominated by or included on the tentative lists of several
Pacific nations (see Dingwall this volume). The inscription of
Bikini Atoll on the World Heritage List in 2010 recognised not
only the international significance of the Cold War nuclear
testing programme in general but bought to the attention
of the global community the impact of this testing on the
people of Bikini and the Marshall Islands (see Baker this
volume). Similarly the nomination of the Historic Port Town
of Levuka by Fiji re-contextualises European colonialism in
the Pacific region as cultural interaction and negotiation
between indigenous peoples of the region and European
colonisers (see Smith, Nemani and Kalougata this volume).
The values of these two properties acknowledge regional
Pacific responses to global events as being outstanding
alongside those places reflecting continuing traditional associations and practices of Pacific Island communities.
8
World Heritage and community
in the Pacific
In the Pacific Islands over 80 per cent of land continues to
be held under customary systems of land tenure. The rights
of customary land owners are enshrined in the constitutions of many Pacific Island states, protecting the access to
land, resources and sustainable livelihoods. As early as the
First Global Strategy meeting in the Pacific in Suva in 1997
respect for and the consent of local communities was identified as key to any World Heritage programmes in the region,
representatives at the Suva meeting having agreed that
In the Pacific Islands region, decisions about World Heritage conservation have to be formulated in partnership
with, and with the agreement of, local communities and
individual land holders who are the custodians and who
have the sites under direct political, spiritual and traditional
control (UNESCO, 1997)
Community participation in all stages of implementation
of the Convention was championed by Aotearoa/New
Zealand during their term on the World Heritage Committee in which they represented interests of the Pacific Island
region. At the Christchurch meeting of the World Heritage
Committee in 2007, under the leadership of Sir Tumu Te
Heuheu, Aotearoa/New Zealand successfully proposed the
addition of a fifth ‘C’, ‘Community’ to the four strategic
objectives of the World Heritage Committee – Credibility,
Conservation, Capacity-building and Communication –
that frame planning and funding of World Heritage programmes (UNESCO, 2007b).
My proposal to the World Heritage Committee to include
the ‘fifth C’ for community highlights the importance of
heritage protection providing for the circumstances, associations and needs of human communities within each
heritage site or resource. Heritage protection without
community involvement and commitment is an invitation
to failure. (Tumu te Heuheu 2007:35)
Continuing systems of customary land tenure in the Pacific
Islands mean that local communities, the customary land
owners, are the decision makers in the protection and management of their cultural and natural heritage. International
and National agencies may work alongside and support
local communities but any decisions around engagement
with the World Heritage process lie with customary land
owners and takes place through customary decision making processes (see Australian Kokoda Taskforce Secretariat
this volume). For almost all communities in the region,
World Heritage was and for most still is a new concept.
A very extensive period of consultation is needed for communities to fully understand the rationale and processes of
World Heritage, the benefits and impacts of engagement
with global heritage conservation in general and specifically how the nomination and potential inscription of their
land may affect their lives and those of their children (see
Section 3 this volume).
Mount Ngauruhoe, Tongariro National Park World Heritage Site,
Aotearoa/New Zealand. © Salamat Ali Tabassum
Customary land tenure also means customary processes of
decision making in relation to the management of World
Heritage properties. As yet the processes of customary
management and government protection for heritage
places that will enable sustainable management of World
Heritage properties in the region are evolving (see Gabrys;
Denham; and Chape this volume). In many Pacific countries
a tension remains between national legislation for protection of World Heritage properties (in compliance with the
state party’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention) and the rights of customary land owners. Developing
legal protection for Pacific Island heritage that recognizes
the rights of customary owners and satisfies international
standards established in very different social, cultural and
political systems, remains a great challenge and will require
flexibility and cultural sensitivity in World Heritage system.
Limited capacity for (World) Heritage
protection and management
Although there is great diversity not only in the cultures
and environments of the Pacific but also their colonial
histories, governance structures, resources and resource
needs, speaking of this vast area as a ‘region’ makes sense
because of the shared issues they face not only in protecting their heritage but more broadly in sustaining the
lives and livelihoods of Pacific communities (see Kokoda
Task Force this volume). While cultural and natural heritage is highly valued by communities, the protection and
management of this heritage has not been a priority for
governments of the region. Government ministries and
departments responsible for heritage protection were (and
are) generally under-resourced and understaffed. While
traditional land tenure and systems of authority and land
management provide a level of protection for cultural and
natural heritage in the region, there are very few trained
heritage professionals who can act as an interface between
local communities and national and international heritage
agencies. The protection afforded by traditional land tenure systems has not proved robust in the Solomon Islands
and Papua New Guinea. A regional approach to address-
ing these concerns is promoted through important programmes of regional organizations and institutions including the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program
(SPREP)9 and through non-government organisation such
as ICOMOS Pasifika, PIMA, IUCN and WWF, all of which
play a vital role in building regional networks and utilising
international donor funding to support heritage management across the Pacific.
The success of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme is
often measured in the near-universal Pacific membership in the
Convention, the submission of Tentative Lists and the
inscription of multiple sites in the region. While this has to
an extent satisfied the Committee’s aims for a representative
World Heritage List, the Programme itself has only led to
incremental improvements in the capacity of communities
and government in the region to protect and manage their
heritage or to support customary owners to do so. From the
outset of the Global Strategy initiatives in the region, representatives of Pacific countries have stressed that the capacity of the Pacific Island countries to implement the World
Heritage Convention was limited by lack of resources and a
region-wide lack of skills in heritage management. There are
very few trained heritage professionals in the Pacific Islands
and only very limited technical training opportunities available through the regional colleges and universities for Pacific
people who wish to gain skills and knowledge in heritage
management (see Smith and Ratunabuabua this volume).
In the context of the economic and social challenges faced
by the region, engagement in the World Heritage system
places considerable stress on the resources of Pacific Island
States and not surprisingly, the nomination and inscription
of properties on the World Heritage List has not been a
priority for most governments. In developed countries the
nomination of properties to the World Heritage List takes
place in the context of national inventories of heritage
places and well-established systems for their protection
and management, as for example Tongariro National Park,
Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park,
Australia. In the Pacific Islands this process has been somewhat inverted, with the World Heritage Program seeking to
increase the representation of the region on the World Heritage List in the absence of existing national frameworks for
heritage protection and management, without legislation,
management systems, heritage registers, trained personnel or financial resources. Most Pacific Island nations are at
best at a ‘listing’ rather than a ‘management’ stage. Most
are only now in the process of establishing inventories of
heritage places and values from which representative and/
or outstanding properties may be identified.
At the commencement of the World Heritage Pacific 2009
Programme most Pacific Island States had some legislation for the protection of natural heritage although it was
9. S ecretariat of the Pacific Community www.spc.org; Secretariat of the Pacific
Regional Environment Program <http://www.sprep.org/index.php>
9
unlikely to be consistently enforced. Few countries had any
legal protection for cultural heritage places and where it
did exist much was outdated and inadequate in protecting heritage values in general. This situation has improved
in so far as several countries including Vanuatu, Fiji and
the Solomon Islands have introduced legislation specifically to protect heritage places they have or may in the
future nominate for inscription on the World Heritage List.
The extent to which this legislation provides protection is
limited by the resources available for their implementation and enforcement and by the constitutional rights of
customary owners (Denham this volume). Statutory and
administrative frameworks for protecting cultural heritage
places, intangible cultural and moveable cultural heritage,
are at an incipient stage of development in most Pacific
Island nations.
In Conclusion
There have been many outcomes of the World Heritage
Pacific 2009 Programme that demonstrate the value of
the decision of the World Heritage Committee and donor
countries and international organisations to support the
Pacific community in implementing the World Heritage
Convention. The value of two outcomes cannot be underestimated. Firstly the unique strength of customary practices and land tenures in the Pacific and their recognition
in nominations; the development of management plans; in
the Pacific Appeal; and the efforts of Tumu te Heuheu as
Chair of the World Heritage Committee, has meant that
the Programme substantially increased international recognition of the essential role of communities in the protection
and management of World Heritage properties. Secondly,
the regional meetings and other activities associated with
the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme has led to the
creation of a network of people, from within and outside
the region, who continue to share their expertise in heritage management as professionals, government officers,
students and community members. Many have contributed
papers to this volume celebrating Pacific Heritage. Their
shared commitment to the protection and conservation of
Pacific Island heritage provides a solid base to take forward
the goal of the Pacific Action plan 2010 -2015.
to strengthen the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention in the Pacific Island region and increase local,
regional and global awareness, recognition and support
for the conservation of the unique cultural and natural
heritage of the Pacific in a way that takes into account the
traditions, aspirations, opportunities and challenges of its
people (UNESCO, 2012:19)
10
References
Asian Development Bank. 2011. Key Indicators
for Asia and the Pacific 2011. 42nd Edition.
Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2011. Climate Change in the Pacific: Scientific
Assessment and New Research. Volume 1: Regional
Overview. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO) http://www.cawcr.
gov.au/projects/PCCSP/publications.html
Lilley, A. (ed.) 2010 Early human expansion
and innovation in the Pacific. Paris: ICOMOS
Smith A. and K. Jones 2007. Cultural Landscapes
of the Pacific Islands. ICOMOS Thematic Study.
Paris: ICOMOS
Tumu te Heuheu 2007 Interview. World
Heritage. Volume 46:34-36 Paris: UNESCO
UNESCO 1997 Identification of World Heritage
properties in the Pacific, Findings and Recommendations, First Global Strategy Meeting for the
Pacific, Suva, Fiji, 15-18 July 1997 Doc.WHC-97/
CONF.208/INF.8
UNESCO 1999. Identification of World Heritage
properties in the Pacific. Second World Heritage
Global Strategy Meeting for the Pacific Islands
region, Port Vila, Vanuatu 24-27 August 1999.
Doc. WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.16
UNESCO, 2004 The State of World Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region 2003. World Heritage Papers
12. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO, 2005 Report of the Pacific regional
meeting Thematic Framework for World Cultural
Heritage in the Pacific 5-8 September 2005,
Port Vila, Vanuatu.
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-5-3.pdf
UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009 Progress
Against The Pacific 2009 Action Plan http://whc.
unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity5-4.pdf
United Nations Economic and Social Commission
for Asia and the Pacific. 2007. Improving Employment Opportunities in Pacific Island Developing
Countries. Small Island Developing States Series,
No. 1. Fiji: United Nations.
Participants at the first Pacific World Heritage Meeting at Tongariro National Park, Aotearoa/New Zealand in October 2004 experiencing
snow for the first time. © Giovanni Boccardi
Participants arriving on Maupiti Island, French Polynesia for the fourth regional Pacific Islands World Heritage Workshop in November 2009.
© Anita Smith
11
1b
The World Heritage Pacific 2009
Programme: addressing the aims
of the global strategy in the
Pacific region
Giovanni Boccardi, UNESCO World Heritage Centre
By the early 1980s, States Parties to the World Heritage Convention became concerned about the imbalance in the representation of the world’s diverse
cultural and natural heritage on the World Heritage
List, in favour of Western countries and a traditional
approach to heritage values which put emphasis on
the monumental, the architectural and the artistic.
It was only in 1994, however, that a consensus was achieved
on a conceptual framework to improve the representivity
of the List, based on the recommendations of an expert
meeting that took place at UNESCO Headquarters in June
of the same year.10 This involved a more inclusive, anthropological perspective to the meaning of heritage, focusing
on universal cultural themes that pertained to all civilisations under the general headings of ‘human coexistence
with the land’ and ‘human beings in society.’
The new approach informed the development of the
‘Global Strategy for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention’ (also known as ‘the Global Strategy’),
a programme aimed to redress the imbalance of the List
through a combination of thematic studies, capacity-building, awareness-raising and technical assistance activities,
which the World Heritage Committee adopted at its 18th
Session in Phuket, Thailand.11
Focus on the Pacific: potential and
challenges
In implementing the Global Strategy, the attention of
the World Heritage Committee was drawn to the Pacific,
an ‘aquatic continent’ of three million square kilometers
covering nearly one third of the earth’s surface, characterized by an immense range, richness and uniqueness of
natural and cultural heritage, which stood out as the largest
‘empty spot’ on the World Heritage map.
10. The Report of the expert Meeting on the “Global Strategy” is available
online from: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1994/whc-94-conf003inf6e.pdf
11. The Global Strategy developed over the years giving rise to numerous
activities and publications. Some of these can be accessed online from:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy
12
At the time, only four countries in the UNESCO subregion of Pacific Islands – Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and
the Solomon Islands – had joined the 1972 Convention,
with all the inscribed properties concentrated within the
first two countries. To ensure adequate representation of
Pacific heritage on the List, the mobilization of political will
and institutional capacity within the other numerous small
Island States of the Pacific was clearly necessary. Another
issue, moreover, related to the specific nature of the Pacific’s cultural and natural heritage, so different from that of
Europe and other ‘continental’ regions, which required
new approaches in order to be interpreted and conserved.
Distinctions between cultural and natural, tangible and
intangible, and even between heritage and non-heritage,
have indeed little relevance for indigenous societies living
in tiny, remote islands scattered across the ocean and with
such a strong spiritual and material connection to, if not
identification with, their environment. In the Pacific context, people, their villages, mountains, rivers, lagoons and
the ocean itself, together with all their biological diversity, are all interconnected elements of a single cultural
land and sea-scape, mostly managed through customary
practices, which is at the same time deeply imbued with
symbolic meaning and critical for the survival of its communities. As very well put by the representatives of the
Pacific Island States themselves, the distinct character of
the region’s heritage is in its being “holistic, embracing all
life, and…understood through our cultural traditions”.12
In a context where the identification between people and
their land (and seas) is so strong, moreover, the notion of
Outstanding Universal Value – at the foundation of the
World Heritage Convention – does not immediately resonate with local communities who sometimes fail to understand the implicit distinction among places having more or
less “value,” let alone their global dimension.
12. F rom the “Pacific Appeal to the World Heritage Committee from the
Pacific Islands States Parties”, annexed to the Report presented to
the 31st Session of the World Heritage Committee in Christchurch,
2007. This Document is accessible online from: http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/2007/whc07-31com-11ce.pdf
On the other hand, the institutional capacity in the heritage
sector within small Island States was very limited. When
existing, the competent governmental agencies could count
on just a few individuals, whose responsibilities included
not just tangible cultural heritage, but often all aspects of
cultural policies and/or environmental protection. Lack of
specific training on the World Heritage Convention combined with limited resources and the difficulty of international travel in the region constituted additional challenges
for the implementation of the Convention in the Pacific.
For this reason, and because of the remoteness and vulnerability of these islands to threats such as natural disasters, climate change and sea-level rise, the question, in the
Pacific, appeared to be not so much the protection of some
select outstanding heritage properties, or even of heritage
per se, but rather ensuring the sustainability of its communities through the continuation of customary practices
for the conservation and appropriate management of the
environment as a whole, with particular attention paid to
the most symbolically charged places where social meaning
is concentrated. Clearly, a programme for World Heritage
in the Pacific had to take account of these specificities and
be based on an appropriate strategy, possibly very different
from other regions.
Action in the region: the early days
The first phase of the Global Strategy in the Pacific region
saw a large number of consultations aimed at raising
awareness of the Convention, analyzing the situation and
identifying agreed priorities. To this end, the World Heritage
Centre, in close cooperation with the countries concerned,
the three Advisory Bodies to the Convention13 and other relevant regional Institutions such as the Pacific Islands Museums Association (PIMA), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme (SPREP), carried out a number of initiatives.
A Course on ‘Conserving Pacific Heritage Sites’ (November
1996) was thus organised as part of ICCROM’s PREMO
1994-1998 programme to preserve Pacific Islands heritage, with support from the World Heritage Fund. This was
followed, in July 1997 and August 1999, by two World
Heritage Global Strategy Meetings for the Pacific, held
respectively in Suva (Fiji) and Port Vila (Vanuatu), which
aimed to review progress with the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention in the Pacific and establishing
clear priorities for the next few years.
A very important meeting was then held in Hanoi (Vietnam) in March 2002 on ‘Tropical coastal, marine & small
island ecosystems’, which identified a list of Pacific marine
sites with potential for World Heritage inscription.
13. T hese are the International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and
the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and restoration of Cultural properties (ICCROM).
1b
Other initiatives implemented by partners in the region
included a training programme available in CD format
and named ‘Conserving Pacific Places’, produced by
the Cultural Heritage Centre for Asia and the Pacific at
Deakin University in Melbourne (Australia), in association
with ICOMOS Australia, PIMA and with support from the
UNESCO Division of Cultural Heritage through the Japan
Funds-in-Trust; and the development and dissemination
of the Pacific version of the World Heritage Education Kit
‘World Heritage in Young Hands’, known as ‘Our Pacific
Heritage World Heritage’14 a pedagogical tool aimed at
promoting the ideas and values of the Conventions among
secondary school children, by the New Zealand National
Commission for UNESCO.
All these efforts led to the ratification of the Convention by
several other countries and the building of a momentum in
the region. The capacity of national authorities in heritage
protection and management was also developed, and sites
with a potential for being inscribed on the List were identified.
More importantly, a network of professionals from the region
was established, which continued to interact and exchange
even outside formal meetings promoted by UNESCO.
The first cycle of the Periodic Reporting and
the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme
In 2003, Pacific States Parties were asked to submit their
first ‘Periodic Reporting’, a general overview of the state of
the implementation of the Convention in their countries
and, where applicable, of the state of conservation of their
World Heritage properties. This is a statutory requirement
under the World Heritage Convention which provides the
opportunity, for States Parties of a region, to jointly review
the situation and identify strategic priorities for action at
the regional level. The final report summarizing the results
of this process was presented to the World Heritage Committee at its 27th Session (Paris, 2003). It included, in
Annex, a ‘Pacific 2009 Programme,’15 including proposed
objectives and actions which were identified by the States
Parties of the region on the occasion of a Capacity-Building
Workshop organized in Apia (Samoa), in February. The six
main objectives of the Programme were:
• Ensuring full membership;
• R
aise awareness of benefits of the World Heritage
Convention;
• Build capacities for Tentative Lists and Nominations;
• E nsure representation of Pacific region on World
Heritage List;
• Promoting serial and trans-boundary nominations;
• E stablishing partnerships among Governments,
NGOs, and international Institutions.
14. P acific Heritage – World Heritage is available at whc.unesco.org/
uploads/activities/documents/activity-54-21.pdf
15. The World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme is accessible online from:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2003/whc03-27com-20be.pdf
13
1b
The World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme: addressing the aims of the global strategy in the Pacific region
Identified partners included SPREP, PIMA, Conservation
International (CI), the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) as well as, of course, the three Advisory
Bodies of the Convention. The amount of 100,000 USD
was also approved by the World Heritage Committee to
contribute to its implementation.
As part of the Programme, it was foreseen that a regional
consultation would take place in 2004 to define a detailed
plan of action. The opportunity for this consultation was
provided during the landmark meeting that was held at
Tongariro National Park World Heritage Site (New Zealand),
in October 2004. The Action Plan developed at Tongariro,
which included the possibility for individual States Parties
to define their own specific ‘National Action Plan’, was
then endorsed by the World Heritage Committee at its
7th extraordinary session (Paris, 2004). This Action Plan
became – over the following years, the real road-map for
the implementation of the Global Strategy in the Pacific
and represents in many ways a turning point, both for the
unprecedented level of involvement and commitment of
the participating States Parties and for the depth of the
analysis and reflection that led to the agreed objectives and
proposed actions.
Seven years later, the World Heritage landscape in the
Pacific has changed quite dramatically, and for the better.
Nearly all the small Island countries of the region have ratified the Convention (the only exceptions now being Nauru
and Tuvalu) and have submitted their Tentative Lists, while
several sites were inscribed on the World Heritage List.
This has been possible thanks to the great commitment
of the concerned professionals within the Pacific States
Parties, as well as to the considerable support provided
over the years – directly and through UNESCO – by the
governments of countries such as Australia, France, Japan,
Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain.
The integration of the Pacific heritage within the framework of the World Heritage Convention – which of course
is far from achieved and still has a huge potential – has
implied the testing, and often the stretching, of its conceptual premises, leading to a number of landmark innovations which established new standards for the world at
large. It is in the Pacific, for example, that the first cultural
landscapes were inscribed on the World Heritage List (Tongariro National Park in New Zealand, and Uluru Kata Tjuta
National Park in Australia), in recognition of the strong
spiritual values associated by the local communities to the
two sites. It was, again, in the Pacific that East Rennell in
the Solomon Islands became the first property managed
exclusively through customary practices, to be inscribed on
the List. Although community management of the property has now integrated non-customary processes, this
inscription testified to a new understanding of the relationship between heritage and communities. Finally, it was
thanks to a proposal by New Zealand that a fifth “C”, for
Community, was added to the Strategic Objectives of the
Convention in 2007 (31st Session of the World Heritage
14
Committee, Christchurch, New Zealand). As the Convention prepares in 2012 to celebrate its 40th Anniversary,
whose official theme is “World Heritage and Sustainable
Development: the Role of Communities”, it would seem
only appropriate to expect from the Pacific new ideas that
would further enrich the Convention and make it even
more relevant to the challenges of the 21st century.
1b
Welcome from Ngati Tuwharetoa at Tapeka Marae to delegates to the Pacific World Heritage meeting in Tongariro, Aotearoa/New Zealand
in 2004. © UNESCO
15
1b
World Heritage Convention and
Intangible Heritage Convention
in the Pacific
Akatsuki Takahashi, Programme Specialist for Culture at the
UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, Samoa
16
The World Conference on Cultural Policies in Mexico
City in 1982, known as Mondiacult, redefined the concept of culture by extending its definition to modes
of life, the fundamental rights of the human being,
values systems, traditions and beliefs. Since then,
the international community strived to develop normative instruments addressing cultural identity and
cultural diversity as main elements of a development
policy. At the end of 1990, this led to the adoption of
the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore by the General Conference
of UNESCO (1989), and the launch of the Programme
of the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and
Intangible Heritage of Humanity (1997). The aim
of the Proclamation was to raise awareness of the
importance of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) by
establishing a new form of international distinction.
In 2001, 2003 and 2005, 90 elements were proclaimed
Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of
Humanity, creating a worldwide movement for the
ICH safeguarding.
Vanuatu Sand Drawings, inscribed on the Representative List
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2008.
© Vanuatu National Cultural Council
Based on the outcome of the global assessment of the
1989 Recommendation, the Director-General of UNESCO
submitted in 2001 a report on the preliminary study on the
advisability of regulating internationally, through a new
standard-setting instrument, the protection of traditional
culture and folklore. The report concluded that since the
instruments that had already been adopted in the field of
cultural heritage were principally concerned with the tangible cultural heritage and did not refer specifically to ICH,
they could not provide a satisfactory framework for protection, partly on account of the very nature of the ICH. The
report recommended that a new normative instrument be
prepared on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (United Nations, 1948). In the same year, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Article 7 of this Declaration states
that heritage in all its forms must be preserved, enhanced
and handed on to future generations as a record of human
experience and aspirations, so as to foster creativity in all its
diversity and to inspire genuine dialogue among cultures.
After several sessions of the intergovernmental meeting of
experts, the text of a new instrument was finalized and the
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage was adopted in November 2003. The Convention
entered into force on 20 April 2006, three months after the
deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification.
According to Article 2 of the ICH Convention, the ICH
means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts
and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups, and, in some cases, individuals recognize as
part of their cultural heritage, transmitted from generation
to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and
groups in response to their environment, their interaction
with nature and their history, and provides them with a
sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect
for cultural diversity and human creativity. ICH, as defined
in the Convention, is manifested inter alia in the following
domains of ICH, i) Oral traditions and expressions, including
language as a vehicle of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,
ii) Performing arts, iii) Social practices, rituals and festive
events, iv) Knowledge and practices concerning nature and
the universe, v) Traditional craftsmanship.
The ICH Convention is different from the World Heritage
Convention in a number of aspects. First, the ICH Convention places emphasis on the equal recognition of ICH with
no hierarchical distinctions among them, making the concept of Outstanding Universal Value not applicable to ICH.
Second, the ICH Convention focuses process and transmission, rather than products and ownership. Lastly, the ICH
Convention focuses principally on safeguarding activities
and the exchange of good practices through the implementation of Article 18, rather than the listing system.
After entry into force, ICH Intergovernmental Committee
was established. The ICH Committee prepared the Operational Directive of the ICH Convention. The ICH Committee
met in Abu Dhabi in 2009 decided to inscribe 12 elements
on the Urgent Safeguarding List and 79 elements on the
ICH Representative List and 3 good practices in the Registry
of Good Practices. The above-mentioned 90 Masterpieces
were incorporated in the Representative List.
As for the World Heritage Convention, a new category of
cultural property, the ‘Cultural landscape’ was defined in
1992. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation
of the World Heritage Convention was revised to provide
definitions of three types of cultural landscapes for consideration in World Heritage nominations; i) A clearly defined
landscape designed and created intentionally by man, ii)
The organically evolved landscape, iii) The associative cultural landscape.
1b
In parallel with the elaboration of the ICH Convention, in
2002, the World Heritage Committee revised the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention by requesting to ensure closer coordination of its work with other international conservation
instruments including “future conventions” in its paragraph 139. In 2004, the World Heritage Committee met
in Suzhou in China examined a document prepared by the
ICH Section of the Culture Sector of UNESCO proposing
future amendment of the inscription criteria of the World
Heritage Convention in order to ensure coherence between
the World Heritage Convention and the ICH Convention.
However, this proposal was not accepted by the Committee based on the argument that it was too early to consider
such amendment taking account of the fact that the ICH
Convention had not entered into force at that moment. In
the same year, the Yamato Declaration was adopted at an
international conference held in Nara, Japan. The Yamato
Declaration calls upon all stakeholders “to explore and
support investigations of strategies and procedures to integrate the safeguarding of tangible and intangible heritage
in close collaboration and agreement with the communities and groups concerned.”
From the history illustrated above, one may understand
that the period of 2003-2009 covered by the Pacific World
Heritage 2009 Programme was the time when the 2003
ICH Convention was adopted and rapidly operationalized,
while the attempts were made to revisit the scope of the
The Hina Moana at sea. There is now a resurgence of interest in Pacific voyaging and a number of island countries are involved in recreating
migration journeys in voyaging canoes that have traditional designs. © Stuart Chape
17
1b
World Heritage Convention and Intangible Heritage Convention in the Pacific
1972 Convention as to extent to the intangible element
of the tangible cultural and natural heritage. It was also
during this period that the Pacific region hosted the World
Heritage Committee meeting for the first time in 2007 in
Christchurch in NZ. The under-representation of the Pacific
heritage on the World Heritage List continued to be an issue
during this period. In this connection, the fact that the first
cultural landscape on the World Heritage List was Tongariro
National Park in Aotearoa/New Zealand (inscribed on the
World Heritage List first as natural site in 1990 and later reinscribed as cultural landscape already in 1993 for recognition of the strong cultural and religious significance for the
Maori people, symbolizing the spiritual links between the
community and its environment) eloquently demonstrates
the prominent ICH aspect of the Pacific heritage. This seems
to be one of the reasons behind the preparation of ICOMOS
Thematic Study on Cultural Landscapes of the Pacific Islands
(Smith and Jones, 2007) carried out within the framework
of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme. The Thematic Report successfully identified a number of potential
cultural landscapes in the Pacific for World Heritage nominations, among which three, i.e. the Kuk Early Agricultural Site
in PNG, Chief Roi Mata’s Domain in Vanuatu and Bikini Atoll
Nuclear Tests Site in Marshall Islands were inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 2007, 2008, and 2010 respectively.
Furthermore, this Thematic Study recommended further
studies on the associative cultural landscapes and seascapes
including spiritual associations and traditional knowledge as
well as on the cultural and linguistic diversity in the Pacific,
which could also be better recognized within the framework
of ICH Convention.
In order to pursue integrated safeguarding in the Pacific, it
is worth being reminded that the ICH definitions include,
cultural spaces, and that two Masterpieces from the Pacific,
namely, Sand Drawing from Vanuatu and Lakalaka from
Tonga were integrated in the Representative List of ICH of
Humanity when the both countries became parties to the
2003 Convention in 2010. As of November 2011, five Pacific
countries (PMG, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu and Palau) are parties
to the ICH Convention. Through national and regional consultations, awareness of the ICH safeguarding for sustainable development have been significantly enhanced and
countries have started to putting in place national strategy
and measures, such as nation-wide inventory making, for
this purpose. Some state parties were benefitted from the
ICH Fund to attend meetings of the ICH Intergovernmental
Committee, while others are working on the preparation of
new nominations of their ICH elements and safeguarding
practices on the ICH Lists and register.
RIGHT: Welcome siva-va’a for the arrival of voyaging canoes to
Samoa. © Stuart Chape
18
1b
19
20
A Sea of Islands:
Diverse Values and
Interconnected Histories
2
© Stuart Chape
21
2
Thematic Frameworks for the
cultural values of the Pacific
Ian Lilley, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Christophe Sand, Institute of New Caledonian and Pacific
Archaeology, Nouméa, New Caledonia
The Thematic Framework for World Cultural Heritage
in the Pacific was formulated in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in
2005. It sought to:
1. Gain consensus from Pacific Island Countries
and Territories on appropriate regional themes
for nomination of sites of cultural value;
2. Agree on the methodology to be used to undertake thematic studies; and
3. Identify those who will take responsibility for
the studies (UNESCO, WHC 2005:3).
The meeting determined that:
a thematic study would identify the main characteristics and cultural values of the generic type of heritage site from a World Heritage perspective, examine
a select number of representative examples included
or not included in the World Heritage List, determine
possible gaps in the latter and, with reference to the
Operational Guidelines, indicate the criteria under
which such sites might be nominated for inscription
on the World Heritage List (UNESCO, WHC, 2005:4).
Two such thematic studies have been undertaken to date.
The first, by Anita Smith and Kevin Jones (2007), is entitled
Cultural Landscapes of the Pacific Islands. The second,
involving the present authors amongst others (Lilley, 2010),
is Early Human Expansion and Innovation in the Pacific. The
latter work closely follows the former in tone, intent and, in
places, content. This paper reviews these two reports in the
context of an appraisal of the larger Thematic Framework
for the Pacific. The objective is to gauge the relevance of
thematic studies to the recognition of the cultural values of
the region. Background information is drawn largely from
Smith and Jones (2007), as they provide an excellent summary of the issues in question.
Background to Port Vila 2005
In accordance with the World Heritage Committee’s (WHC)
decision to create a credible, balanced and representative
World Heritage List (Jokilehto, 2005), the 3rd UNESCO
World Heritage Global Strategy meeting was convened
in Suva, Fiji, in 1997. The forum distinguished four key
themes for the Pacific:
22
1. Places of origin or mythological origin, navigation
routes and places related to navigation;
2. Archaeological and historical sites of human settlements;
3. Places of traditional economic and ceremonial
exchange;
4. From the past to the present, continuity and
change in the Pacific.
At that time, Aotearoa/New Zealand, Fiji, the Solomon
Islands and Papua New Guinea were the only local Pacific
States Parties that had signed the World Heritage Convention and Aotearoa/New Zealand was the only Pacific
country with a World Heritage site. Tongariro National
Park was first listed in 1990 as a natural property but in
1993 was re-inscribed as the first-ever World Heritage cultural landscape. Other Pacific properties were on the List
at that time, but all belonged to non-local States Parties.
These sites were the Hawaiian Island Volcanoes National
Park inscribed by the United States of America in 1987;
the United Kingdom’s Henderson Island property, listed in
1988; the Lorenz National Park in the Indonesian province
of Papua (western New Guinea), inscribed in 1999 and the
Rapa Nui National Park on Rap Nui/Easter Island, which
was listed as a Chilean property in 1995. All except Rapa
Nui are natural properties.
In 1998, Amsterdam in the Netherlands hosted the 4th
UNESCO World Heritage Global Strategy meeting. The
gathering formulated the following definition of Outstanding Universal Value that emphasises the need to identify
overarching themes that can bridge the local and historical
specificities of World Heritage properties:
The requirement of Outstanding Universal Value
characterising cultural and natural heritage should
be interpreted as an outstanding response to issues
of universal nature common to or addressed by all
human cultures. In relation to natural heritage, such
issues are seen in bio-geographical diversity; in relation to culture in human creativity and resulting cultural diversity.
2
Traditional fale, Apolima Island, included on Samoa’s Tentative List as part of ‘Manono, Apolima and Nuulopa Cultural Landscape’ in 2006.
© Anita Smith
In that same year, East Rennell Island in the Solomon
Islands, the world’s largest raised coral atoll, was the first
property in the independent Pacific to be listed as a World
Heritage site. In 1999, a second regional World Heritage
Global Strategy conference was arranged in Port Vila. The
aim was to help raise the World Heritage Convention’s profile in the independent Pacific.
The 1999 Port Vila meeting also highlighted the fact
that Western philosophical and methodological divisions
between ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ were not recognised in Pacific
approaches to the creation and management of knowledge
about the world, with the strong implication that mixed
nominations would generally be more appropriate in the
region than either ‘stand-alone’ cultural or natural nominations. It was this perspective that some years earlier had led
to the re-listing of Tongariro National Park in Aotearoa/New
Zealand. We will return to this general point below.
In 2003, the World Heritage Committee embarked on
the World Heritage Pacific 2009 programme. The number
of Pacific signatories to the World Heritage Convention
had by then expanded to 11 States Parties. Nonetheless,
implementation rates remained very low. No nominations
had been entered and only a handful of Pacific states had
created or submitted Tentative Lists of prospective World
Heritage properties. On that basis, specialists from across
the Pacific gathered in 2004 at the World Heritage Pacific
2009 Workshop at Tongariro to develop an Action Plan to
assist Pacific States Parties with their implementation of the
World Heritage Convention during the five years to 2009.
The Pacific 2009 Action Plan (UNESCO, WHC, 2004:2)
noted that ‘Every country and territory in the region is different’ but that ‘There are, however, strong similarities and
common heritage themes between islands’. On that basis,
the Action Plan included Activity 2.5, ‘Undertake thematic
and comparative studies for cultural heritage values’. These
thematic studies were to follow established ‘priorities and
associated methodologies for undertaking such projects’
(UNESCO, WHC, 2004:4). As noted at the start of the present paper, the primary objectives of thematic studies are
‘to identify the main characteristics and cultural values of
the generic type of heritage site from a World Heritage
perspective, examine a select number of representative
examples included or not included in the World Heritage
List, determine possible gaps in the latter and, with reference to the Operational Guidelines, indicate the criteria
under which such sites might be nominated for inscription
on the World Heritage List’ (UNESCO, WHC, 2005:4).
In addition, Activity 2.5 included Sub-activity 2.5.1, which
was to convene a forum which would undertake the tasks
23
2
listed at the start of this paper, namely to gain consensus on regional heritage themes, agree of methodologies
to study these themes and identify who might undertake
such studies. The 2005 Port Vila meeting was designed to
advance this Sub-activity. The meeting brought together
experts from Pacific Island Countries and Territories to
identify regional themes for which Thematic Studies were
needed to help identify properties of likely Outstanding
Universal Value in the region as well as feasible transnational serial nominations.
Contributors to the Port Vila workshop distilled the following three Thematic Studies as regional priorities:
1. Associative Cultural Landscapes of stories that
explain the origin and development of social
structures in the Pacific;
2. Cultural Landscapes related to cultivation in the
Pacific; and
3. Lapita expansion.
Smith and Jones’ (2007) thematic study addressed the
first two priorities, while Lilley’s (2010) expanded upon the
third priority to include pre- and non-Lapita dimensions of
Pacific colonisation. In doing so, Lilley and his colleagues
returned the focus to the wider concerns expressed in Port
Vila regarding ‘major human and cultural phenomena’
(UNESCO, WHC, 2005:6-8), where ‘early human expansion
and innovation in the Pacific’ rather than just its Lapita component was identified as a key overarching theme.
ICOMOS 2005 ‘Filling the Gaps – An Action
Plan for the Future’
Also in 2005, ICOMOS published The World Heritage List:
Filling the Gaps – An Action Plan for the Future (Jokilehto,
2005). It is crucial that the thematic studies under the spotlight in this chapter – and indeed the wider Pacific Thematic
Framework under which they were commissioned – are
assessed in relation to the global Filling the Gaps Action Plan
as well as the regionally-specific Pacific 2009 Action Plan.
The objective of the Filling the Gaps review was to analyse cultural sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and
States Parties Tentative Lists using regional, chronological,
geographical and thematic frameworks. The aim was to
offer States Parties an unambiguous appraisal of the current representation of sites in these varied categories and of
predictable short- to medium-term listing trends, in order
that under-represented categories could be highlighted.
The review has a number of ramifications for the present
assessment of thematic studies in the Pacific. It acknowledged that cultural regions do not always reflect the contemporary political map and thus that it is impossible to
achieve a truly ‘balanced’ World Heritage List at anything
but an abstract, global level. Despite this acknowledgement, the wide cultural regions used by UNESCO – Africa,
the Arab States, Asia Pacific, Europe/North America and
24
Latin America/Caribbean – were used in the review to
frame the typological analysis.
This approach diminishes the usefulness of the review’s
typological findings concerning the Pacific. Using such an
extensive cultural region as the ‘Asia Pacific’ as the analytical focus conceals the true level of under-representation of
sites in the independent Pacific and elides the profound
differences between the unique small-scale cultures of the
Pacific and those in the geographically and demographically much larger and more heterogeneous Asia. The
review’s study of the World Heritage List on a chronological-regional basis used ‘Australasia and Oceania’ as the
unit of analysis, with Asia dealt with separately. Splitting
Oceania from Asia in this way allowed a clear demonstration of the way in which the Pacific is poorly represented
on the World Heritage and Tentative Lists.
The chronological-regional study intended to highlight key
cultural phenomena that have appeared around the world.
The analysis determined that various ‘cultures’, ‘empires’ or
‘civilisations’ had existed at different times in Asia, Africa,
Europe and the Americas. Extraordinarily, however, these
criteria were not used in the analysis of sites in Australasia and the Pacific. This essentially Eurocentric perception
overlooks the substantial cultural change that has occurred
through time in the Indigenous cultures of Oceania and
Australasia, in their socio-political arrangements as well as
in their patterns of land use and other economic activity. It
is obvious that the spatial and temporal diversity of Pacific
Island societies and their landscapes must be acknowledged if the World Heritage List is really going to be more
balanced and representative.
• T he thematic analyses in the 2005 ICOMOS
Filling the Gaps report considered the representation
of sites in relation to seven dominant topics:
• Expressions of Society
• Creative Responses and Continuity
• Spiritual responses
• Utilising natural resources
• Movement of peoples
• Developing technologies
The most common theme was found to be ‘creative
response and continuity’, which refers to the categories of
monuments, groups of buildings, and sites, as defined by
the World Heritage Convention.
The ICOMOS report also identified several basic factors
that undermine the fair representation of regions such as
the Pacific Islands on the World Heritage List. These matters must be addressed if a globally representative, balanced and credible List is to be achieved. In regions such
as the independent Pacific, the diversity and disposition of
cultural heritage remains largely unknown and only partially recorded at best. At present, there are still no comprehensive scientific studies or inventories of cultural heritage
2
The Rock Islands of Palau inscribed on the World Heritage List as a mixed property in 2012 © Stuart Chape
places that can be used to identify cultural properties of
Outstanding Universal Value in small Pacific Island States
Parties. The incomplete recording of cultural heritage along
with lack of adequate protective mechanisms as required
by the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention when a property is nominated for inscription, are two of the main reasons for the
continuing imbalance in the World Heritage List.
Finally, the 2005 ICOMOS ‘Filling the Gaps’ review found
there is need for better international understanding of the
local cultural values of potential World Heritage properties.
These local values derive from the highly-distinctive cultural
systems that have emerged in the environments of the underrepresented areas. This matter is of particular relevance to
the Pacific Islands, where organically-evolved cultural landscapes – relic and continuing – are a response to the shifting
challenges and opportunities of the Oceanic world from the
time of initial human expansion into the western Pacific over
40,000 years ago right up to the present.
What has the Pacific Thematic Framework
and thematic studies achieved?
Smith’s comprehensive essay covers a lot of ground, geographically as well as topically. There are two main reasons
for this (Smith and Jones, 2007:5). First, the Pacific comprises about one third of the Earth’s surface ‘and contains
the cultural heritage of more than two thousand islands
ranging from the continental islands of New Zealand and
Papua New Guinea to the tiny remote atolls of the central
and east Pacific Ocean’. Second, the Pacific remains ‘one of
the most underrepresented regions on the World Heritage
List. [F]ew Pacific Island countries or territories have docu-
mented their cultural heritage places or have legislation to
protect them. The character and diversity of cultural heritage places in the region is therefore not well known’.
The authors explain how the Pacific Islands form a ‘geocultural region’ on the basis of environmental and longterm and more recent historical factors. They go on in the
same section to consider the so-called ‘transported landscapes’ of the Pacific, or the intentional ‘introduction of
not just plants and animals but methods and technologies
of cultivation to generate food supply on small and isolated
pieces of land’ (Smith and Jones, 2007:28). Transported
landscapes are a central feature of the Pacific. As the
authors note (Smith and Jones, 2007:30):
The Oceanic environment presented a number of
major challenges for human settlement which were
successfully overcome through knowledge and skills
in navigation and seafaring and exploitation of the
rich marine resources and through modification of
island ecosystems to provide a stable resource base.
For these reasons, the Pacific Island landscapes are
essentially complete cultural landscapes.
The discussion then details the main factors underlying the
diversity of cultural landscapes in the Pacific Islands, including natural factors such as island size and climate, as well as
cultural questions such as traditional social organization and
the character and extent of non-Indigenous settlement. The
last three sections of the chapter cover ‘Organically Evolved
Cultural Landscapes of the Pacific’, ‘Cultural Landscapes of
the Colonial Era’, and ‘Associative Cultural Landscapes and
Seascapes’. These three sections are what makes the report
overall, as they develop the notion of cultural landscape in
considerable theoretical and empirical depth.
25
2
Smith and Jones’ work certainly does what the 2005
Port Vila meeting required thematic studies to do. It has
unquestionably put Pacific cultural landscapes on the heritage map, intellectually-speaking. It was presented, showcased and circulated to the WHC and other States Parties
attending the WHC meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand,
in 2007, which greatly increased the visibility of the region
in the international field. Moreover, the WHC adopted it as
a model for future thematic studies. However, there is no
discernible sign yet – and it would be unreasonable at this
early stage to expect – that it has prompted any States Parties to think more or differently in any concrete way about
nominating cultural landscapes. Even so, although the
work is general and limited in scope, it is the only compendium of heritage places in the region that includes a variety
of sites – built, archaeological and physical. On that basis, it
has been widely distributed and is used it as a educational
reference in schools in various Pacific Island countries. Free
access via the ICOMOS website has greatly facilitated this
process of dissemination.
Lilley’s (2010) edited volume on Early Human Expansion
and Innovation in the Pacific complements but is quite
different from Smith and Jones’ study. This is because it
does not have to create awareness of what is still a relatively new concept in the heritage field, namely the idea
of ‘cultural landscape’. Taking a completely conventional
approach, Lilley and his colleagues address the main geotemporal patterns in the settlement of the Pacific, beginning with Lilley’s chapter on ‘Near Oceania’, which focuses
on Pleistocene (Ice Age) settlement of New Guinea and the
islands out to the end of the main Solomon Islands chain.
This early expansion began about 45,000 years ago, as part
of the same process that saw the initial human colonization of Australia from Asia. The following chapters cover
navigation and seafaring, by Geoffrey Irwin, ceramic chronologies of the Western Pacific during the Lapita period by
Christophe Sand, Micronesia, by Geoffrey Clark and East
Polynesia by Melinda Allen. Questions of seafaring and
navigation are obviously central to the settlement of an
island world such as the Pacific, and such matters loom
very large in the perspectives of Pacific people on their
cultural heritage. Ceramics and especially Lapita ceramics
and other aspects of what is known as the Lapita Cultural
Complex, form a major focus of archaeological research
in the Western Pacific, as indicated by the inclusion of the
Lapita phenomenon as one of the original thematic priorities of the 2005 Port Vila meeting. Lapita’s importance centres on its role as the founding human culture some 3,000
years ago in what archaeologists call ‘Remote Oceania’, or
that part of the Pacific east of the main Solomon Islands
chain. Micronesia and East Polynesia are major regions of
the Pacific that warrant separate specialised treatment. In
Micronesia’s case, this is because its deep history is split
in two, with that of the western part of the region being
as old as but essentially separate from the Lapita dispersal
into the south western Pacific. Central and eastern Micronesia, on the other hand, have a prehistory ‘descended’
from the Lapita Cultural Complex. Eastern Polynesia is
26
on some ways a world unto itself insofar as it is obviously
‘descended’ from Lapita settlement but then took a trajectory that is largely unrelated to the post-Lapita prehistory
of the western Pacific. Another major difference between
Lilley’s volume and Smith and Jones’s work is that rather
than provide a single site gazetteer of the sort complied
by Jones, each of the geographically-focussed chapters (ie
excluding Irwin) in Lilley’s 2010 study discusses sites in the
various separate regions of concern.
Like Smith and Jones’ (2007) volume, Lilley’s later study does
what is required of it by the resolutions of the 2005 Port
Vila meeting. However, it was released much too recently
for it to have been thoroughly digested by many relevant
individuals or agencies, let alone have any lasting impact.
While only time will tell whether the two thematic studies completed to date will have a positive effect on World
Heritage matters in the Pacific, it is important to emphasise
that there has been some progress in Pacific Island representation in the World Heritage ‘system’ since 2005. Then,
there was only one cultural site on the World Heritage List
that is actually on a Pacific Island: Rapa Nui National Park.
Yet, this property is not recognised as an Asia-Pacific site
because Easter Island is politically part of Chile and so is
considered by UNESCO to be in the Latin America/Caribbean region. Today there are three cultural sites listed in
the independent Pacific: Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site in
the Marshall Islands, Chief Roy Mata’s Domain in Vanuatu
and the Kuk Early Agricultural Site in Papua New Guinea.
In addition, the United States successfully nominated the
mixed property of Papahānaumokuākea in north western
Hawai’i in 2010.
It is still too early to tell if the Thematic Framework for World
Cultural Heritage in the Pacific that was formulated in Port
Vila in 2005 is going to drive further worthwhile change in
the foregoing situation over the medium to long term. The
same applies by implication to the two thematic studies
conducted under the Framework’s aegis. Smith and Jones’
(2007) volume is in essence an extended essay by Smith
concerning cultural landscapes in the Pacific, ‘topped and
tailed’ with brief introductory and concluding commentary.
There is also a descriptive listing of illustrative properties,
prepared by Jones, which provides information of the sort
needed to support comparative analyses of prospective
World Heritage properties.
The fact that it remains still too early to gauge the effect(s)
of either of the thematic studies that have flowed from the
Port Vila forum does not mean it is not too early to think
how they may have been done better, or at least what
might now be done to take their results further. Indeed,
Smith and Jones’ report (2007:118-119) itself begins to
do precisely that. The writers recognise in particular that
as a desk study that is expressly not designed to encompass original research, their study (and by extension Lilley’s
edited volume) cannot include firsthand input from Pacific
Island people regarding their interests and concerns. This
2
Marist Convent School Levuka, Fiji. A world Heritage nomination for the Historic Port town of Levuka was submitted to the World Heritage
Centre in 2012. © Anita Smith
lack of ‘bottom-up’ content has two major results. First,
it is a problem in and of itself. It means that one of the
main factors undermining serious uptake of World Heritage issues in the Pacific (and indeed other parts of the
world) – namely, lack of popular engagement with and
‘vernacularisation’ of the values underlying the World
Heritage convention – remains a profound impediment
to balancing the World Heritage List despite all the effort
and good intentions that have gone into developing the
Thematic Framework and undertaking the two thematic
studies that have flowed from it.
Intimately connected with this issue is that of the continuing separation of nature and culture in approaches to World
Heritage management. Pacific Island people will simply not
be able to engage properly with World Heritage values if
conceptual and technical approaches to the identification
and management of those values continue to consider
nature and culture as distinct phenomena requiring distinct
approaches. If any further thematic studies are to be commissioned under the auspices of the 2005 Port Vila framework, they should begin by seeking firsthand local input
in a manner that recognizes the indivisibility of nature and
culture in Pacific Island perspectives.
References
ICOMOS 2005 The World Heritage List. Filling
the Gaps – an Action Plan for the Future. Paris:
ICOMOS
Lilley, A. (ed.) 2010 Early human expansion and
innovation in the Pacific. Paris: ICOMOS
Smith, A. and K. Jones 2007. Cultural Landscapes
of the Pacific Islands. Paris: ICOMOS
UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2005. Thematic
Framework for World Cultural Heritage in the
Pacific 5-8 September 2005, Port Vila, Vanuatu
Report. Paris: UNESCO WHC
UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2004 Action Plan.
World Heritage – Pacific 2009 Programme. Paris:
UNESCO WHC
27
2
Pacific Islands World Heritage
Tentative Lists
Paul R. Dingwall, Wellington, New Zealand
Of the fourteen independent self-governing Pacific
Island Nations,16 twelve have ratified the World Heritage Convention,17 and five of these have a property
inscribed on the World Heritage List.18 Of the twelve
Pacific Island States Parties (SPs) to the Convention,
nine have submitted a tentative list.19
A tentative list (TL) is an inventory of sites considered by
the SP to be cultural and/or natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value and, therefore, meriting inscription on
the World Heritage List at some future stage. The World
Heritage Committee requires that nominated properties be
previously included on a TL.20 Tentative lists are important
because they provide for input of expert knowledge on
heritage, they allow for consultation and agreement among
all key stakeholders and they are a useful planning tool in
indicating the number and scope of future nominations.
The heritage values of properties on Pacific
Island tentative lists
Thirty-two properties are included on the Tentative Lists.21
Of these, fifteen are cultural properties, five are natural
properties and twelve are mixed cultural and natural properties or cultural land/seascapes. That the great majority (84
per cent) of properties listed are cultural properties, mixed
properties or cultural land/seascapes is remarkable but not
surprising considering that most land in the Pacific Islands is
in held in customary tenure by traditional owners and has
either material or associative cultural values.
Most of the outstanding natural values of the natural and
mixed properties can be grouped into several broad, but
overlapping, physical and biological categories as follows:
Coral islands, atolls and reefs
• Rock Islands (Palau)
• Milne Bay Seascape (PNG)
• N
orthern Marshall Island Atolls and Mili Atoll
(Republic of the Marshall Islands)
Lagoon systems, barrier reefs and mangrove forests
• Marovo-Tetepare Complex (Solomons)
• Imeong Conservation Area (Palau)
Karst landscapes
• S ublime Karsts of Papua New Guinea and Kikori
River Basin (PNG)
Volcanic islands and features
• Manono-Apolima Islands (Samoa)
• Lake Letas (Vanuatu)
Tectonic geology
• Huon Terraces (PNG)
Forest biota and habitats
• Fagaloa Bay-Uafato (Samoa)
• T rans-Fly Complex and Upper Sepik River Basin
(PNG)
• Kokoda Track and Owen Stanley Ranges (PNG)
• T ropical Rainforest Heritage (Solomons), Vatthe
Conservation Area (Vanuatu)
16. Pacific Island Nations are identified here as those states that are members of the Pacific Islands Forum, excluding Australia and New Zealand.
17. The two states yet to ratify the WH Convention are Nauru and Tuvalu.
18. The five existing Pacific Island World Heritage properties are: Phoenix
Islands Protected Area (Kiribati); Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site (Republic
of the Marshall Islands); Kuk Early Agricultural Site.
19. The three SPs currently without a tentative list are: Cook Islands, Kiribati
and Niue.
20. The procedure and format for tentative lists are covered in Section IIC
of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2005. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. WHC.05/2, February 2005, Paris, UNESCO, World Heritage Centre.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines (English).
21. The Yapese Stone Money sites are included in the tentative lists of both
Palau and FSM, but they are intended to form a single transboundary
serial property.
28
• Yaduataba Crested Iguana Sanctuary (Fiji)
Most of the outstanding cultural values of cultural and mixed
properties or cultural land/seascapes can also be grouped
into broadly overlapping thematic categories as follows:
Ancient capitals, government centres and fortresses
• Ancient Capitals of the Kingdom of Tonga (Tonga)
• Levuka, Ovalau (Fiji)
• Nowon and Votwos of Ureparapara (Vanuatu)
2
Huon Terraces, Papua New Guinea. Included on Papua New Guinea’s Tentative List as a mixed cultural and natural property. © Ian Lilley
Spiritual, religious, ceremonial and burial centres
• Y
alo, Apialo and Sacred Geography of NW
Malakula (Vanuatu)
• Historic military sites and warfare relics
• Wreck of the “President Coolidge” (Vanuatu)
• Chuuk Lagoon Underwater Fleet (FSM).
• Imeong Conservation Area (Palau)
Ancient megalithic structures and monuments
• Nan Madol (FSM)
• Tet el bad (Palau)
Archaeological sites
• Lapita Pottery Archaeological Sites (Tonga)
• Sigatoka Sand Dunes (Fiji)
Traditional indigenous villages and settlements
• Fagaloa Bay-Uafato Tiavea Conservation Zone
(Samoa)
Continuing traditional horticultural and agricultural
cultural landscapes
• M
anono, Apolima and Nuulopa Cultural
Landscape (Samoa)
• H
uon Terraces (PNG), Kikori River Basin (PNG),
Sublime Karsts of PNG (PNG)
• TransFly Complex (PNG)
Continuing traditional seascapes
• Milne Bay Seascape (PNG)
Filling the gaps in tentative lists
The oceanic realm of the Pacific Islands covers one third
of the earth’s surface, or an area larger than all the land
on earth combined, and encompasses thousands of islands
and surrounding seas with an immensely rich diversity of
natural and cultural heritage. But it remains the least represented of all the world’s regions on the World Heritage
List. There is a need to further develop TLs and to nominate
more properties for inscription as World Heritage.
At recent Pacific World Heritage meetings and during the
current Asia-Pacific Region periodic reporting cycle a number of State Parties have recognised a need to revise their
TLs in order to critically re-assess the potential outstanding
universal values of the properties, fill gaps in the representation of natural and cultural heritage, consult more with local
communities and other stakeholders, take advantage of new
knowledge from research, examine the thematic studies of
the Advisory Bodies and harmonise their lists with other State
Parties. All of these issues are relevant to the revision and
further development of Tentative Lists in the Pacific Islands.
• Marovo-Tetepare Complex (Solomons)
Centres of European contact and colonisation
• Likiep Village (RMI).
The conceptual approach to expanding Tentative Lists and
filling gaps in representation should take account of the
following major thematic areas:
29
2
Natural heritage
Geological origins and evolution of islands
Apart from the “continental” islands such as of Papua New
Guinea, there are three major types of island in the Pacific:
high volcanic islands; atolls, and raised coral limestone
islands (makatea).
Although Pacific high volcanic islands are already represented as natural World Heritage by the shield volcanoes
of the Hawaiian Islands (USA) and the Galapagos Islands
(Ecuador), and by the basaltic lava flows of Rapa Nui-Easter
Island (Chile), IUCN has identified a need to further fill
the gap in the representation of oceanic volcanic islands
(Wood, 2009). The Tentative Lists include Lake Letas (Vanuatu) is the crater of a recently erupted volcano, and in
Samoa Manono and Apolima are volcanic summit islands
and the Fagaloa-Uafato property is on the slopes of the
Upolo shield volcano. The spectacular volcanoes of the
Nakanai Ranges in the Sublime Karsts property of PNG are
the best representatives of “continental-type” volcanoes
on Tentative Lists in the Pacific region.
Pacific low atolls on the World Heritage List are represented
by Bikini, a cultural property in Marshal Islands, and within
the Phoenix Islands (Kiribati) and Papahanaumokuakea
(Hawaii, USA) properties. There is considerable scope for
including atolls from all major biogeographic zones in the
Pacific, but these should preferably be developed as transboundary serial nominations. Raised coral islands in World
Heritage properties include Rennell Island (Solomon Islands),
Henderson Island (UK) and several within the Phoenix Islands
(Kiribati). With harmonisation of Tentative Lists among Pacific
State Parties, a transboundary serial property of islands at
different stages of geological evolution could be selected
from among the Rock Islands of Palau, the Cook Islands,
Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Niue, Samoa, Tonga and
from the French overseas territory of New Caledonia.
Karst landscapes
IUCN has noted that the many and diverse forms of karst
landforms in the tropical Pacific are poorly represented
on the WH List (Williams, 2008; Hamilton-Smith, 2005 &
2007). Three properties on the Tentative List of Papua New
Guinea contain magnificent terrestrial karst landscapes
and landforms – Huon Terraces, Kikori River Basin and the
Sublime Karst of PNG and have the potential to be a serial
nomination. The Vatthe area (Vanuatu) also contains spectacular karst and, as discussed above, there are many other
possibilities for including raised coral islands in natural or
cultural properties.
Biogeographic diversity
In the formulation of Tentative Lists little consideration has
been given to the representation of the biological diversity
throughout the Pacific region. IUCN has previously reported
that less than 2 per cent of the oceanian biogeographical
realm (of Udvardy) is included in World Heritage properties
(Mangin & Chape, 2004). Reference should also be made
30
to the several recognised formulations of global biodiversity, including the WWF Global 200 Ecoregions (terrestrial,
freshwater and marine), Centres of Plant Diversity, Endemic
Bird Areas (Birdlife International), and the IUCN Species
Survival Commission Global Habitat Analysis – all of which
are discussed comprehensively in the IUCN document.
Marine species and habitats
Marine areas in the Pacific are well represented in the Phoenix Islands (Kiribati) and Papahanaumokaukea (Hawaii, USA)
World Heritage properties, which are among the largest of all
properties on the List.22 Further properties covering a wider
range of Pacific marine biogeography could be considered.
Also there is a great opportunity to encompass whale migration routes in a transboundary serial nomination. For example, the waters of Tonga are a globally significant breeding
ground for humpback whales and the site of a major whalewatching tourist operation. They could be linked as World
Heritage with whale sanctuaries in French Polynesia, New
Caledonia and the Cook Islands, among others.
Cultural heritage
From a review of cultural properties on the World Heritage
List and on Tentative Lists (ICOMOS, 2005), ICOMOS has
identified gaps and opportunities for developing World
Heritage cultural landscapes in the Pacific Islands (Smith &
Jones, 2007). The analysis uses geographical, chronological and thematic frameworks to identify a portfolio of 21
actual or potential sites with OUV meriting World Heritage
status as cultural landscapes or seascapes.
The primary focus is on organically evolved landscapes, particularly horticultural practices, and on social patterning of
landscapes through land tenure systems, villages and other
built structures. On current Pacific Tentative Lists, the properties in PNG offer excellent examples of organically evolved
landscapes. Thus, the Kikori River Basin has a residential
population of some 60,000 subsistence hunter-gatherers in
16 ethnic groups, and both the TransFly and the Upper Sepik
River Basin have many traditional communities with diverse
ethnic, language, religious and social structures, along with
traditional villages, sacred sites and ancestral routes.
Among other major themes explored and sites identified
by ICOMOS are:
• S ettlement patterns – Rapa Nui/Easter Island;
Tikopia (Solomons)
• R
itual functions and purposes – Mauna Kea (Hawaii)
• Traditions – Taputapuatea/Raiataea (French Polynesia)
• F ortifications and warfare – Babeldaob hill terraces
(Palau)
• Social organisation – Lapaha Royal Tombs (Tonga)
• E nvironmental adaptation – Rapa (French Polynesia),
Rapa Nui.
22. Together with the Great Barrier Reef property of Australia.
• P olynesian origins and Lapita sites – PNG, Solomon
islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Yonga and Samoa
• O
ceanic voyaging and navigation – Line Islands
(Kiribati)
The final two of this list, Lapita sites and oceanic voyaging,
present opportunities for developing transboundary serial
cultural nominations. Lapita sites are distinguished by highly
decorated pottery artefacts signifying the remarkable episode of colonisation by Pacific peoples around 3000 years
ago, extending from the Bismarck Archipelago over thousands of kilometres to Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga
and Samoa. The Lapita pottery site on Tonga’s Tentative List
is intended as a component of wider serial property. The
success and survival of the Lapita people are attributed to
their knowledge of domesticated food crops and fishing,
and in particular to their seafaring and navigational skills.
These skills were foremost among the technologies needed
for the settlement of the far-flung island homes, witnessing
the migration of peoples over vast ocean expanses using
winds and currents for propulsion and stars, seabird movement, oral tradition and history for navigation. Long sea
voyages may also have been required for trading among
islands, such as the exchanges in obsidian (volcanic glass)
in the Bismarck Archipelago, and the quarrying of limestone disc money in Palau and its distribution throughout
2
FSM. Colonisation and voyaging themes can be also be
the basis of serial nominations linking sites relating to later
colonisation in Eastern Polynesia, including to Aotearoa/
New Zealand, or colonisation of Micronesia from the Philippines to Palau, Yap and the Marshall Islands. Historical
voyages of Pacific exploration by European seafaring powers, and modern colonising or occupation episodes such
as those of Germany and Japan, also offer many opportunities for transboundary serial WH properties.
Conclusion
Most Pacific Island State Parties have developed World
Heritage tentative lists. Many of them require revision and
up-dating, especially to take account of new research and
thematic studies, and to harmonise Tentative Lists to capture
through serial nominations major episodic events in human
exploration and settlement of the Pacific realm – among
the last great regions of the world to be settled by people.
The majority of properties currently included will inevitably
be cultural or mixed ones, and particularly cultural land/
seascapes, given the customary ownership of land and
resources in the Pacific Islands and the cultural veneration of
land and sea. The Pacific region has the potential not only to
add a unique suite of properties to the World Heritage List
but also to redress the geographical imbalance in the global
network of World Heritage properties.
Sigatoka Sand Dunes National Park, included as a cultural on Fiji’s Tentative List in 1999. The Sigatoka Dunes is one of Fiji’s earliest
recorded prehistoric sites. © Stuart Chape
31
2
References
Hamilton-Smith, E. 2005. Karst and Caves of the
South Pacific. IUCN Miscell. Pub., Gland, Switzerland.
Hamilton-Smith, E. 2007. Karst and Caves of
Micronesia. IUCN Miscell. Pub., Gland, Switzerland.
ICOMOS 2005. The World Heritage List: Filling the
Gaps – An Action Plan for the Future.
ICOMOS Miscell. Pub., Paris.
Magin, C. and Chape, S. 2004. Review of
the World Heritage Network: Biogeography,
Habitats and Biodiversity. UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre and IUCN, Cambridge UK and
Gland Switzerland.
Williams, Paul 2008. World Heritage Caves and
Karst: a Thematic Study. IUCN World Heritage
Studies No. 2, Gland, Switzerland.
Wood, Chris 2009. World Heritage Volcanoes
Thematic Study. IUCN World Heritage Studies No. 8,
Gland, Switzerland.
Smith, Anita and Jones, Kevin L. 2007. Cultural
Landscapes of the Pacific Islands. ICOMOS and
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris.
Traditional canoe in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area,
Kiribati, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2010.
© Kiribati Ministry of Internal Affairs/Natan Itonga
32
2
33
2
Developing the Solomon Islands
Tentative List
Salamat Ali Tabbasum, Cambridge University, UK
Small Island Developing States in the Pacific, rich in
both cultural and natural diversity, experience specific problems arising from their small size, remoteness, geographical dispersion, vulnerability to natural
disasters, climate change and climate variability, fragile ecosystems, economic and financial shocks, political instability, limited internal markets and depletion
of natural resources. Most of the Pacific states lack
inventories for cultural, as well as natural, heritage
sites due to several challenges including lack of government capacity in undertaking research and financial and human resources, among others. Reviewing
recently prepared Tentative Lists by the Pacific states
reveals that either they are incomplete or lack suffi
cient information justifying the outstanding universal value because of the lack of inventories.
Thus, one of the main challenges in developing Tentative
Lists is a lack of national inventories in most of the Pacific
Island Countries (PICs) as the Solomon Islands is a case in
point. Though the Solomon Islands acceded to the World
Heritage Convention in 1992, it took about two decades to
achieve a Tentative List, though not yet complete, because
of various challenges including the civil unrests in 1998,
2000, and 2003, complex customary tenure systems, lack
of capacity and resources, and varying traditional social
administrative structures, among others. Moreover, the
country is still recovering from the civil unrest that put a
dent on its socioeconomic and socio-political system. As a
result, conservation is still not a priority for the government.
There are very few staff in the relevant department dealing
with myriad of issues related to multinational and regional
agencies and NGOs. The Solomon Islands’ case exemplifies
challenges and issues that are not uncommon to other PICs
with regard to the preparation of Tentative Lists.
34
Background: World Heritage in
Solomon Islands
The Solomon Islands, the second largest Pacific Island country, has since independence in 1978 faced many development challenges, including commercial logging and fishing. Since the late 1980s, influential global conservation
organizations have been supporting and promoting integrated conservation and development projects in the Solomon Islands (Foale, 2001) through the interaction between
formal and informal institutions.23 Marovo Lagoon in the
Solomon Islands, is the largest double-barrier reef in the
world, rich in both biodiversity and cultural diversity and
long considered of World Heritage potential but development of a World Heritage nomination has been in limbo
for decades due to a complex web of conservation and
management challenges, particularly logging.24
Solomon Islands ratified the World Heritage Convention
in 1992 following the New Zealand government initiating World Heritage promotional activities in the Solomon
Islands in 1987 (Bayliss-Smith,1993). In 1989, the New
Zealand Government launched an eco-tourism development project entitled ‘World Heritage Eco-tourism Project’
at East Rennell and Marovo Lagoon (Wingham, 1997;
Bayliss-Smith, 1993). Although East Rennell was successfully inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1998 the ecotourism project did not achieve its objectives to have a
World Heritage nomination for Marovo Lagoon.25
23. T raditional societies of Melanesia and Polynesia, are referred to as informal institutions, while formal institutions include governments, nongovernmental and international organizations.
24. In 1989, Asian logging companies returned to Marovo on the invitation
of local land-owners. Logging activities on southeast Vangunu Island,
Marovo from 1992 till 1993 were undertaken by an Asian logging company that received concessions from the government (Hviding 1996, 42).
In 1992, clear-felling that devastated Avavasa Island in Marovo was carried out by a logging company brought to the island by a group.
25. In 1989, the New Zealand Government through its NZODA (New Zealand
Official Development Assistance) initiated a World Heritage Eco-tourism
Development Project for Marovo Lagoon to promote sustainable development (Bayliss-Smith 1993; Greenaway 1995; Cornforth et al 1997).
The project was to include preparation of World Heritage nomination
for Marovo, and an Eco-tourism Project to provide assistance to communities for the sustainable development of their resources (Cornforth
et al 1997, 2).
2
Workshop at Marovo Lagoon in 2006 to develop the Tentative List for the Solomon Islands. © Paul Dingwall
Solomon Islands’ Tentative List:
Process and Preparation
Civil unrest in the Solomon Islands meant the cessation of
the New Zealand programme and World Heritage relatedactivities in general in 2001. The World Heritage Centre
resumed its activities in the Solomon Islands in 2005 with
a joint IUCN/WHC joint mission to Marovo in 2005. In consultation with village elders, chiefs, and the relevant central
government officials, it was agreed that a World Heritage
consultation workshop in the Solomon Islands would be
conducted so as to further the nomination of Marovo
Lagoon on the World Heritage List, as well as to develop a
Tentative List of potential World Heritage properties in the
Solomon Islands (UNESCO, 2005a).
The workshop entitled ‘Workshop for the Preparation of
the Tentative List of the Solomon Islands & Reassessment
of the Potential World Heritage Value of Marovo Lagoon’
was held in 2006 on Uepi Island, Marovo Lagoon, attended
by international and regional heritage experts, representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), government officials, East Rennell community representatives,
and representatives from Marovo and Tetepare26 communities including elders and leaders. A major outcome was
26. Tetepare Island, to the east of the Marovo Lagoon, is the largest uninhabited island in the South Pacific and home to several endemic and
IUCN Red List species. The island has a complete lowland rainforest
ecosystem, some of the last remaining intact lowland rainforest in the
Solomon Islands and wider Pacific region.
the development of a structure for establishing a Marovo
Heritage Advisory Council that would develop and oversee
conservation and a sustainable development strategy and
an action plan (UNESCO, 2006b).
Following a detailed discussion of proposals that were
introduced by local NGOs and Marovo community representatives during the workshop, a list of five potential
World Heritage properties was agreed for inclusion in a
draft Tentative List (Table 1). An associated Action Plan was
developed for the implementation of activities to achieve
the proposed Tentative List. The sites proposed were two
mixed, two cultural and one natural property and included
a cultural and landscapes and seascape. Further assessment to determine the mixed, cultural and natural values
was recommended. In addition, it was recommended to
conduct a study so as to assess cultural values of East Rennell, currently inscribed on natural criteria.
Regional and local NGOs played a vital role in the identification of these sites and the workshop was pivotal as the
potential sites were identified by rigorous consultations with
local stakeholders, instead of ‘external technocrats’. A major
issue remained in funding further values assessment and the
preparation of a Tentative List of these potential sites. Since
most of the Pacific Island Countries, like Solomon Islands,
do not have national inventories for potential cultural and
natural sites, it is important to provide them with financial
support so that they can develop such inventories.
35
2
Developing the Solomon Islands Tentative List
Following consultation with an international consultant,27
the Pacific staff at the World Heritage Centre discussed
and finalized a work-plan including activities, budget and
timetable. In 2006, US$ 21,000 was approved from the
World Heritage Fund for the preparation of a Tentative List
of the Solomon Islands. The project was tailored to cover all
critical aspects and steps for preparing a Tentative List. Prior
to the fieldwork, the consultant, Laurie Wein, undertook a
desk-study of natural values of the Solomon Islands, including sites considered of conservation priority and natural
resource management initiatives in the Solomon Islands
(UNESCO, 2007b). This first phase of the project focused
on natural values. A second phase was planned for cultural
values but has not yet eventuated. The Tentative Lists of
other PICs, for instance the Republic of Marshall Islands,
Papua New Guinea and Fiji were used as models to guide
the process of developing the Solomon Islands’ Tentative
List. A paper outlining the key aspects of the Operational
Guidelines was developed by the South Pacific Regional
Environment Program (UNESCO, 2007b). This ensured
that interested stakeholders are aware of the information
required to develop a Tentative List.
Following this several meetings and awareness workshops
were held with key government representatives and a wider
range of stakeholders. A half-day workshop was conducted
for a small group of government representatives including
members of the Solomon Islands National Commission for
UNESCO and senior personnel from the Department of
Environment and Conservation, and the Department of
Tourism and Culture (UNESCO, 2007b) to increase understanding and awareness of World Heritage criteria and
requirements, the Tentative List process, within the relevant
government departments. A stakeholder and government
workshop in the capital Honiara then reviewed sites proposed for the Tentative List to evaluate values and whether
they met World Heritage criteria and the required conditions
of integrity and authenticity. The participants agreed upon
three potential sites for inclusion on the Tentative List:
• M
arovo Tetepare Complex a mixed property
proposed on criteria (iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x)
• T ropical Rainforests of Solomon including Bauro
Highlands of Makira, and key areas of Kolombangara, Choiseul and Guadalcanal a mixed property
on criteria (vii), (ix), (x)28
• S olomon Seas – including Arnavon Islands, a mixed
property on criteria: (iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x)
The planning process also included field visits to potential
World Heritage areas in order to discuss the nomination and
management of World Heritage sites with local stakeholders. Hence, field visits were undertaken to Tetepare Island,
Western Province and Bauro Highlands of Makira-Ulawa
27. Laurie Wein, Country Manager, WWF-Solomon Islands.
28. Although a mixed site, cultural values have not been clarified due to the
lack of an inventory.
36
Province. Finally following consultations from key stakeholders over several months, a Tentative List was drafted.
This contains only two of the proposed sites identified in
the workshops including; 1) Marovo-Tetepare Complex
and 2) The Tropical Rainforests Heritage of Solomon Islands
(UNESCO, 2007b). Due to the lack of information, the third
site, Solomon Seas, could not be included in the TL but was
agreed by the stakeholders that the site would be included
at a later stage when the desired information had been collated. The Government of the Solomon Islands submitted
its Tentative List to the World Heritage Centre in 2008.
Conclusion
Though the road to achieving World Heritage aims and
objectives in the Solomon Islands has been bumpy, it has
not been impossible to achieve World Heritage nominations and Tentative List. Importantly, understanding and
acknowledgement of local systems of ownership and
customary management of cultural and natural sites, and
a systematic approach to dealing with local stakeholders
have been pivotal in furthering World Heritage in the Solomon Islands, and elsewhere in the Pacific.
The Solomon Islands has badly suffered from many unfortunate events including civil unrest between 2000 and
2005 which meant World Heritage was once again put
in the backburner, and that domestic socioeconomic and
political issues took precedence over World Heritage. In
these circumstances, progress towards developing World
Heritage nominations and inventories for cultural sites has
been slow. In order to determine the outstanding cultural
values, an inventory of cultural sites is the need of the hour
without which the Tentative List will remain incomplete.
2
References
Bayliss-Smith, T. 1993. ‘Time Food and Money
in the Marovo Lagoon, Solomon Islands: Village
Surveys in a Proposed World Heritage Site’.
Environmental Planning Programme, Series No.
CSC(93)EPP-19, Technical Paper 299, Commonwealth Science Council.
Chowning, A. 1973. An Introduction to the
Peoples and Cultures of Melanesia. Cummings
Publishing Company, Inc., California.
Cornforth, R., Kudu, D. and Ului, M. 1997.
World Heritage Eco-tourism Project Review:
Evaluation, Analysis and Programme Support
Section (DEAF), Development Cooperation
Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wellington.
Dauvergne, P. 1999. ‘Corporate Power in the
Forests of the Solomon Islands’ Pacific Affairs,
71(4): pp. 524-546.
Foale, S. 2001. ‘Where’s Our Development?:
Landowner aspirations and environmentalist
agendas in Western Solomon Islands’ The Asia
Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 2(2): pp. 44-67.
Greenaway, R. 1995. Eco-tourism Planning for
Marovo Lagoon and Rennell Island, Solomon Islands:
Draft Eco-tourism Plan, World Heritage Programme,
Tourism Resource Consultants, Wellington.
Hviding, E. 1996. Guardians of Marovo Lagoon:
Practice, Place, and Politics in Maritime Melanesia.
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
UNESCO. 2003. Decisions Adopted by the
27th Session of the World Heritage Committee
in 2003, Document: WHC-03/27.COM/7B.12
(http://whc.unesco.org/en/statutorydoc/)
Accessed on 1 June 2008.
UNESCO. 2004. Decisions Adopted at the 28th
Session of the World Heritage Committee in
Suzhou, 2004, Documents:WHC-04/28.COM/15B
and WHC-04/28.COM/26 (http://whc.unesco.org/
en/statutorydoc/ ) Accessed on 2 June 2008.
UNESCO. 2005a. Report on the mission to
East Rennell World Heritage property & Marovo
Lagoon, Solomon Islands, Mary-April 2005, Document: WHC05/29.COM/7B.Rev (http://whc.unesco.
org/en/statutorydoc/ ) Accessed on 5 June 2008.
UNESCO. 2005b. Decisions of the 29th Session of
the World Heritage Committee in Durban, Documents: WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev and WHC-05/29.
COM/22 (http://whc.unesco.org/en/statutorydoc/ )
UNESCO. 2006a. Decisions Adopted at the
31st Session of the World Heritage Committee,
Christchurch, Documents: WHC-07/31.COM/24 and
WHC-07/31.COM/7B (http://whc.unesco.org/en/
statutorydoc/ ) Accessed on 5 June 2008.
UNESCO. 2006b. Report on the Workshop for the
Preparation of the Tentative List of the Solomon
Islands & Reassessment of the Potential World Heritage Value of Marovo Lagoon, Uepi Resort, Marovo
Lagoon (Solomon Islands), 27-31 March 2006.
UNESCO. 2007a. World Heritage Committee,
Thirty-first Session, Christchurch, New Zealand:
Presentation of the World Heritage Programme
for the Pacific, Document: WHC-07/31.COM/11C
(http://whc.unesco.org/en/statutorydoc/ ) Accessed
on 5 June 2008.
UNESCO. 2007b. Mission Report: Preparation of
World Heritage Tentative List for Solomon Islands,
prepared by Laurie Wein.
UNESCO. 2008. Operational Guidelines for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf )
Wingham, E. 1997. Nomination of East Rennell,
Solomon Islands by the Government of the Solomon Islands for Inclusion in the World Heritage List
Natural Sites (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/854/
documents/ ) Accessed on 6 June 2008.
left: Eco-Lodge, Marovo Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Marovo
Lagoon is included in the Marovo-Tetepare Complex mixed
cultural landscape included on the Tentative List of the
Solomon Islands. © Paul Dingwall
37
2
Table 1: Draft Tentative List of the Solomon Islands
Property
Category/criteria
Values (OUV)
Leatherback turtle breeding & nesting site
Intact & integrated reef, lagoon, mangrove & rainforest
ecosystems in close proximity
Largest double reef barrier system in World
Marovo-Tetepare
Complex
Mixed Site or Cultural
Landscape/Seascape
Traditional lifestyle of indigenous people
Criteria (iii), (v), (vi),
(vii), (viii), (ix), (x)
Ebony most threatened tree in region
Carvings/handicraft using ebony, rosewood, kerosene wood
Geotectonics, reef building & island arc system
Endangered White-eyed birds
Dugong & crocodile critically endangered
Giant clam, green snail on IUCN Threatened Species List.
Montane forest ecosystem
Hawksbill rookery
Leatherback beaches
Rich diversity in reef ecosystem
Arnavon Region
(Arnavon Island,
part of Choiseul &
Santa Isabel)
Mixed Site
Vast mangrove forests
Criteria (iii), (v), (vi),
(vii), (ix), (x)
Traditional turtle harvest
Headhunting history/warfare links
Dugong, crocodile
Giant clam
Includes uninhabited chain of islands
Bauro Highlands
& Three Sisters
Complex
Largest tract of undisturbed forests in Solomon Is (63,000 ha)
Natural Site
Criteria (ix) and (x)
Mt Maetaube
38
Mangrove areas
Pteravous spp. Canarium sp.
Endemic Giant rat
East Rennell Island
Renomination on
cultural criteria (iii), (vi)
Sites of WWII
Cultural Serial Site
Criteria (iv),(vi)
Tikopia & Anuta
Islands
Key endemic bird priority area
Cultural Landscape
Criteria (iii), (v), (vi)
Traditional subsistence living by local communities.
Iron Bottom Sound: submerged shipwrecks, aeroplanes.
Purvis Bay/Tulaghi & Okinawa Bay: submerged shipwrecks,
aeroplanes & terrestrial military installations
Outstanding traditional subsistence economy
2
The Cook Islands
Justina Nicholas, Cook Islands Ministry of Culture
Ngatuaine Maui, Cook Islands Welfare Director, Ministry of Internal Affairs
The Cook Islands became a 186th signatory to
the World Heritage Convention in 2009 and is
now considering development and submission of
their Tentative List. The Cook Islands are in the
South Pacific Ocean, north-east of New Zealand,
between French Polynesia and Samoa. The country is made up of 15 small islands divided into two
distinct groups: the Southern Cook Islands and
the Northern Cook Islands with a total land area
of only 240 km2 surrounded by 2.2 million km2 of
ocean. The capital, Rarotonga, is in the Southern
Cook Islands.
• N
ational consultations to be conducted
by local experts with the assistance of an
international expert during Te Maeva Nui,
the celebration of nationhood, self-government and independence that takes places
in August each year
• R
esearch and assessment of the Avana
and Taputapuatea sites for inclusion on
the Tentative List with the assistance of
a regional expert.
A request for International Assistance to develop
the Tentative List has been submitted to the World
Heritage Centre. The funding proposal included
Representatives of the Cook Islands at a Technical Seminar on the World Heritage nomination of ‘Te Pô/Taputapuatea, Valley
of Opoa’, Ra’iatea, French Polynesia in December 2011. L – R: Pa Marie Ariki, Justina Nicholas (Heritage Manager, Ministry
of Culture), Ngatuaine Maui (Welfare Director, Ministry of Internal Affairs), Tou Travel Ariki (President, House of Ariki) and
Ngarima George. © Anita Smith
39
2
Natural World Heritage in Oceania:
Challenges and Opportunities
Stuart Chape, Director – Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Natural Heritage Values in the Pacific
The 22 Pacific Island nations and territories in the
Pacific Regional Environment Programme region are
scattered across a vast area of the Pacific Ocean. They
are characterised by a range of biogeographical and
geomorphological features, from large, mountainous
islands, predominately in Melanesia, to smaller volcanic high islands and extensive atolls in Polynesia and
Micronesia, and raised coralline limestone islands,
such as Nauru and Niue. There is also considerable
climatic range, from tropical to sub-tropical and temperate climates. Although the ocean area is enormous,
with a combined Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of
more than 30 million km², the land area is minute at
almost 552,000 km², with Papua New Guinea comprising 84per cent of that area.
This climatic, terrestrial and marine biophysical diversity,
and the geographical isolation of many islands, generally
increasing in a west to east direction across the Pacific,
is reflected in high levels of species endemism. The biodiversity hotspots of East Melanesia, Polynesia-Micronesia
and New Caledonia defined by Conservation International
contain more than 8,500 endemic plant species, and 165
threatened endemic birds and mammals (Conservation
International 2012). The human discovery and settlement
of these islands occurred over thousands of years, from the
early settlement of Papua New Guinea 46,000 years ago
to the more recent occupation of more distant islands by
Polynesians by 1200 AD (Diamond 2005). The discovery
and colonisation of the Pacific Islands, many of which are
thousands of kilometres from other islands, is recognised
as one of the greatest feats of human endeavour. However,
human occupation and settlement has had major impacts
on native species, existing ecosystems and landscapes.
Many fauna species were extirpated on Pacific Islands
(Steadman 1995, Mead et al. 2002, Steadman and Martin
2003), and ecosystems often radically altered, for example,
from original forests to grasslands, as a result of burning
and cultivation; loss of species through hunting and the
introduction of domestic animals and rats.
40
Unfortunately, alteration of natural ecosystems and impacts
on species continues despite increasing action over the past
20 years by Pacific Island governments, communities and
their international partners to implement conservation measures. Significant initiatives include the Micronesia Challenge,
with commitment by five Micronesian countries and US territories conserve 30 per cent of nearshore coastal waters and
20 per cent of forest land by 2020. Similarly, the ambitious
Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food
Security is a multilateral partnership of six countries working together to conserve 53 per cent of the world’s coral
reefs in the region from the Philippines through Indonesia
to the Solomon Islands. More than 500 communities across
15 Pacific Island countries and territories are involved in the
implementation of Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs)
that contribute to marine habitat and species conservation
and management (Govan, 2009), and in 2010 the 408,250
km2 Phoenix Islands Protected Area in Kiribati was listed as
a natural World Heritage site. The Cook Islands government
is currently planning to declare a major part of its EEZ as a
marine protected area. At variance with other regions of the
world, most conservation progress has been made in Oceania in coastal and marine ecosystems – effective conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and species remains a vexed
Phoenix Islands Protected Area, Kiribati. Inscribed on the World
Heritage List under Criteria in 2010 under Criteria vii and ix.
© Cat Holloway
issue and a high priority. Kingsford et al. (2009) reported
that “loss and degradation of habitat threatens more terrestrial species than any other process, including 80 per cent of
threatened species assessed (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable) for most countries” in Oceania.
More concerted action for conservation and management
of natural heritage is required by Pacific Island governments
if the continuing decline in critical heritage values is to be
addressed, especially for terrestrial ecosystems and species.
World Heritage status can play an important role in promoting such action, although it must be recognised that the
coverage of potential WH sites – with their fundamental
requirement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) – will
not comprehensively address conservation needs and priorities in Oceania.
Current and Proposed Natural WH Sites
2
mixed natural and cultural site, the Rock Islands Southern
Lagoon. All three sites include terrestrial and marine ecosystems although the dominant focus in the Kiribati site is
marine. Although listed for its cultural values, the 735 km2
Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site in the Republic of the Marshall
Islands also protects marine ecosystems.
All parties except Cook Islands, Kiribati and Niue have
submitted Tentative Lists (TL). Seven of the parties have
submitted natural or mixed sites on their TL (Table 1). In
addition to Pacific Island States, Australia, France, UK and
the USA also have natural and mixed WH sites: Lord Howe
Island Group (Australia), Lagoons of New Caledonia: Reef
Diversity and Associated Ecosystems in New Caledonia
(France), Henderson Island (UK), Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park and Papahānaumokuākea (USA). France has proposed
the Marquesas Islands on its TL, and the USA Fagatele Bay
National Marine Sanctuary in American Samoa.
Of the 12 independent Pacific countries that are party
to the World Heritage Convention nine have joined the
Convention since 2000. At present Kiribati and Solomon
Islands have natural World Heritage sites, and Palau a
Table 1: Pacific State Parties, Natural World Heritage Sites and Tentative List Status
State Party
Year
Tentative List
Natural/Mixed
Cook Islands
2009
No
Federated States of Micronesia
2002
Yes
Fiji
1990
Yes – 2
Kiribati
2000
No
Niue
2001
No
Palau
2002
Yes – 1
PNG
1997
Yes – 7
Republic of Marshall Islands
2002
Yes – 2
Samoa
2001
Yes – 1
Solomon Islands
1992
Yes – 2
Tonga
2004
Yes
Vanuatu
2002
Yes – 2
Listed Natural
WH Sites
Nominated
Phoenix Islands
Protected Area (2010)
Rock Islands
Southern Lagoon
East Rennell (1998)
41
2
Natural World Heritage in Oceania: Challenges and Opportunities
Challenges
Overall there is a need for education and awareness raising
of the definition of OUV. Unfortunately, while there is a universal approach to recruitment of countries to become State
Parties to the WH Convention, expectations are not always
met to have sites successfully listed following nomination
because of failure to meet OUV criteria of the convention.
In some cases this may mean that a country will have no
natural WH sites, even though they may have nationally
and regionally important conservation values that should
be protected through other mechanisms. Figure 1 (bottom)
describes the key differences between OUV and ‘representativeness’ in decision-making for WH designation.
There are significant challenges in implementing the WH
Convention in Oceania in relation to natural heritage sites:
• U
nderstanding Outstanding Universal Value and
preparing relevant Tentative Lists
Identification of suitable sites with natural OUV can be a challenge for Pacific Island countries, with external support often
needed for assessment of landscape, ecosystem and species
values as well as understanding and justification of integrity issues. As examples, both Fiji and Samoa have TLs that
currently do not include all priority high value conservation
areas with OUV potential. In the case of Samoa, the TL does
not include the upland forests of Savai’i, referred to as the
“biggest single priority for expansion of the protected area
network in Samoa...the Central Savaii Rainforest – which at
730 km2 is the largest intact block of rainforest in tropical
Polynesia and captures most of the threatened terrestrial species in the country” (Conservation International et al. 2010).
• G
overnance, economic benefits and maintaining
OUV in the Pacific context.
Although the extent of ownership of nearshore and marine
areas varies between state and customary tenure in different Pacific Island countries it is almost universal that
the majority of land and terrestrial resource ownership is
customary. Although there are a number of state owned
protected areas in some Pacific Island countries most are
community conserved areas, owned and managed by
resource owners sometimes with the support of external
organisations and networks. LMMAs are one generally successful example of such an approach.
Similarly, in Fiji the TL currently does not include the large
forest areas of Taveuni, which has landscape, ecosystem and
species conservation values of regional and global importance – Table 2 (below) provides a comparison of this island
with existing Pacific WH sites.
Table 2: Comparison of Species Values between Taveuni and Existing Pacific WH Sites (Chape and Watling 2007)
Endemic Fauna Species
Flora
Birds
Herpetofauna
Mammals
Taveuni (incl. Fiji endemics)
182
15 + 7 Taveuni bird races
22
6
Lord Howe Island Group
105
4
2
0
Henderson Island
10
4
1
0
East Rennell
10
4 + 9 sub-species
1
1
Figure 1: Relationship of World Heritage Sites to other types of protected areas – Outstanding Universal Value
versus Representativeness (Magin and Chape 2004)
Outstanding
Emphasis:
Representativeness:
Regional sites and Networks
ecosystem, landscape,
(e.g Natura 200, ASEAN Heritage Parks)
habitat and species
conservation through
Sub-regional sites
effective PA systems
(e.g Transboundary PAs, Peace parks)
and ecological networks.
National Sites PA Systems
(e.g national parks, nature reserves, private reserves, monuments,
NGO designations such as IBAs, ecological networks)
Sub-National Sites
(e.g regional parks, provincial and district reserves)
42
Decreasing global numbers
Increasing international recognition
Determinent:
Outstanding Universal Value:
Sites can cross the threshold if
they meet one or more WH
criteria and stringent
requirements of
integrity.
Universal Value
World
Heritage
Other
International
(e.g Ramsar, MAB, Geoparks)
The Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster), Phoenix Islands Protected
Area, Kiribati. Inscribed on the World Heritage List under Criteria
in 2010 under Criteria vii and ix. © UNESCO Ron van Oers
Participation and agreement of traditional owners is critical at every step of the WH site assessment and nomination process. However, securing WH listing is only the
first step in a long term management process focused on
maintaining the outstanding values for which the site was
listed. While community conserved areas can generally be
managed effectively by local people (although they often
receive external non-government support) it is vital that
there is a strong supporting partnership between national,
provincial and local government and the community – as
well as external partners as appropriate.
East Rennell WH Site in the Solomon Islands is an example
where this has not happened. The site was listed in 1998,
the year that the 1998-2002 civil conflict commenced in
the Solomon Islands and affected key government support. The East Rennell community, as part of the WH
nomination preparation process, was encouraged that
WH listing would bring income to the community through
tourism. Indeed, donor-funded tourist infrastructure was
built. However, initially the conflict, then remoteness from
the capital, and the continuing failure to maintain regular
transportation to the island to support tourism has resulted
in minimal benefits to East Rennell communities. Additionally, the communities of West Rennell who did not participate in the WH process commenced commercially logging
of their forests, creating an income disparity with the eastern
communities who opted to conserve their forest, lake and
marine resources through the WH Convention.
2
It is only a matter of time before pressure to log the WH site
increases, highlighting the need for a supportive partnership with the national government and a long term solution. East Rennell issues have been the subject of extensive
review by the World Heritage Committee over the past
decade, with the committee noting the logging issue “with
concern” in a decision at its 2010 meeting. A further report
by the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to the 2012 World
Heritage Committee (WHC-12/36.COM/7B) meeting states:
“the scale of commercial resource extraction taking place
both within the property (coconut crabs, other marine species) and outside (large scale commercial logging), particularly in the context of a small island ecosystem is likely not
sustainable and may have significant negative impacts on
the OUV and on the longer term subsistence prospects for
residents”. They recommend that “the Committee request
the State Party to immediately refrain from considering any
further logging operations on Rennell Island.”
The East Rennell issue highlights the contested nature of
conservation value landscapes in the Pacific, where both
high value natural resources and economic development
options are often limited, and in conflict with conservation objectives. In another example, the Sovi Basin in Fiji is
currently on that country’s Tentative List for its forests and
landscape, and has been the subject of intensive conservation efforts for the past 30 years. Most recently this has
resulted in a conservation lease agreement between the
National Trust of Fiji and the customary owners of the Sovi
Basin. However, a watershed in the conservation area has
recently been identified for tailings disposal for large scale
copper mining by the Namosi Joint Venture, and more
than 30 per cent of the catchment for the development
of combined water supply and hydropower dam by the
Fiji Government (see Tabassum and International Heritage
Section, Government of Australia this volume).
Fijian Crested Iguana on Yaduataba island. The Yaduataba
Crested Iguana Sanctuary is on Fiji’s Tentative List as a proposed
natural WH site. © Stuart Chape
43
2
Natural World Heritage in Oceania: Challenges and Opportunities
National capacity
Related to the issue of governance, most Pacific Island countries lack trained personnel and the resources to effectively
manage conservation areas. In many countries trained staff
in national level environment agencies number less than 10,
with resource management agencies dealing with forests
and fisheries also limited in capacity. In comparison to Australia, New Zealand, the USA and other developed countries
where millions of dollars and cadres of trained personnel are
allocated for management of WH sites this is a fundamental
challenge for Pacific Island countries if they are to maintain
WH sites in addition to other protected areas. While many
aspects of management can be devolved to land and resource
owning communities the example of East Rennell shows that
this will only work if there is strong commitment by government in the face of external pressures driven by competing
development factors (see Gabrys and International Heritage
Section, Government of Australia this volume).
Opportunities for the role of WH
in regional conservation
Despite the considerable issues in designating and managing natural WH sites in Oceania, the WH Convention has the
potential to provide a key focus for conserving the region’s
landscapes and biodiversity. For example, although effective
management of such a large area will be challenge, the decision by the Kiribati government to list the Phoenix Islands
Protected Area is an international statement of considerable
importance. Such initiatives make a significant contribution
to achieving the 2020 Aichi Target 11 for establishment of
protected areas and Target 12 for conservation of species.
They can foster international collaboration, especially large
marine areas where effective management of commercial
and conservation species is critical and Pacific Island countries can be supported by more developed neighbouring
countries. Although an effective linkage between WH site
based income generation for governments and resource
owning communities may remain elusive for remote sites,
the potential remains for the economic benefits from WH
sites enjoyed by other countries – and the region badly needs
a good working model to show how this can work. Such a
model may eventuate fairly quickly following the inscription
of the Rock Islands Southern Lagoon in Palau on the World
Heritage List in 2012. Palau already has a strong environmental governance structure at national and state levels, and
existing effective management of the proposed site. It also
generates considerable income from tourism focused on the
Rock Islands. Based on its current environmental management practices and initiatives, such as the Green Fee paid by
all departing passengers at the international airport,29 Palau
is already in a good position to provide advice to other Pacific
countries on relevant conservation management and such
‘south-south’ support should be encouraged.
Finally, Pacific natural heritage that meets the criteria for
Outstanding Universal Value needs to be on the World Heritage list – the landscapes and biodiversity of Oceania are still
an under-valued feature of the planet.
44
References
Chape, S. and D. Watling (2007). Tropical Forest
Heritage of Taveuni, Fiji. Unpublished Tentative List
proposal prepared for National Trust of Fiji.
Conservation International (2012).
http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/
hotspots/ asia-pacific/Pages/asia-pacific.aspx
Conservation International–Pacific Islands
Programme, Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment of Samoa, Secretariat of the Pacific
Regional Environment Programme (2010) Priority
Sites for Conservation in Samoa: Key Biodiversity
Areas. Apia, Samoa.
Diamond J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose
to Fail or Survive. Allen Lane/Penguin Group.
Govan, H. (2009). Achieving the potential of
locally managed marine areas in the South Pacific.
Traditional Marine Resource Management and
Knowledge Information Bulletin #25. Secretariat
of the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Kingsford, R.T, J.E.M Watson, C.J. Lundquist,
O. Venter, L. Hughes, E.L. Johnston, J. Atherton,
M. Gawel, D.A. Keith, B.G. Mackey, C. Morley,
H.P. Possingham, B. Raynor, H.F. Recher, and K.A
Wilson (2009). Major Conservation Policy Issues
for Biodiversity in Oceania. Conservation Biology,
Volume 23, No. 4, pp. 834-840.
Magin, C. And S. Chape (2004). Review of the
World Heritage Network: Biogeography, Habitats
and Biodiversity. UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Mead, J.I, D.W. Steadman, S.H. Bedford, C.J. Bell,
and M. Spriggs (2002). New Extinct Mekosuchine
Crocodile from Vanuatu, South Pacific. Copeia:
Vol. 2002 3 pp. 632-641.
Steadman, D.W. (1995). Prehistoric extinctions of
Pacific Island birds: biodiversity meets zooarchaeology.
Science 267, pp. 1123-1131.
Steadman, D.W. and P.S. Martin (2003). The late
Quaternary extinction and future resurrection of
birds on Pacific Islands. Earth-Science Reviews 61
(2003) pp. 133-147.
29. P alau’s Green Fee is an added departure tax that is funnelled
towards financing local community conservation efforts under
the Protected Areas Network in Palau. This initiative has raised
approximately $US2.26 million since it began in November
2009 and provides a potential model for a sustainable financing mechanism for protected areas for other Pacific Island
States and one which could be extended to community heritage conservation in general. See <http://www.sprep.org/biodiversity-ecosystems-management/the-green-fee-supportingconservation-efforts-in-palau>
2
Central Savaii volcanoes and forest in Samoa, a large area of more than 700 km2 is currently not on Samoa’s Tentative List. © Stuart Chape
La Foa Estuary in the Lagoons of New Caledonia: Reef Diversity and Associated Ecosystems World Heritage Site. © Stuart Chape
45
2
Bikini Atoll: A small remote atoll
of global significance
Nicole Baker, Wellington, New Zealand
Bikini Atoll is the northernmost atoll of the western
Ralik chain of islands in the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, in the equatorial Pacific. Bikini’s 23 islands,
with a total land area of only 720 hectares, encircle
a lagoon which extends 40 kilometres from east to
west, and 22 kilometres north to south.
Bikini Atoll today has a remarkable beauty and sense of
peace. A ring of tiny, low-lying islands bordered by sweeping white-gold beaches and covered in lush green vegetation and swaying palm trees surrounds a lagoon of invitingly
warm turquoise waters. Upon closer inspection, however,
this island paradise bears deep and dramatic scars from
23 nuclear weapons tests carried out here by the United
States between 1946 and 1958.
Bikini Atoll was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2010
on Criteria iv and vi as an outstanding example of a nuclear
test site; the tangible evidence of the birth of the Cold
War and the race to develop increasingly powerful nuclear
weapons. It bears witness to the consequences of the
nuclear tests on the civil populations of Bikini and the Marshall Islands and is associated with ideas and beliefs which
characterized the Cold War, and events that gave rise to
international movements advocating nuclear disarmament
and powerful symbols associated with the ‘nuclear era’,
which characterized the second part of the 20th century.
Tiny, isolated places have often been caught up in the dramatic events of world history. Bikini Atoll is one such place
and issues of global concern continue to be reflected in its
tangible heritage and associated values. Today, the remains
of crumbling grey concrete bunkers and monitoring stations emerge incongruously from the vegetation reclaiming the islands. A gaping hole a mile wide on the northwestern side of the atoll reminds us where the world’s first
deliverable hydrogen bomb, code-named Castle Bravo,
destroyed three islands before its fallout covered eighteen
thousand square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean.
As a nuclear test site, Bikini Atoll is distinctly 20th century
heritage. The entire landscape and seascape of Bikini Atoll
testifies to its history as a nuclear test site, from the ensemble of sunken ships – which lie in the positions where they
46
were placed and subsequently sunk as ‘targets’– and the
purpose-built bunkers and buildings, to the disappeared
islands and the Bravo crater. Even the abandoned rows of
coconut trees, planted in preparation for the failed resettlement, symbolize the fate of a nuclear test site—ongoing
contamination making it unsuitable for human habitation.
For the people of Bikini, the atoll is the abundant and beautiful homeland and the locus of their spiritual and cultural
identity. Archaeology tells us that the Marshall Islands was
populated between 2,000 and 3,500 years ago. The oral
history of the settlement of Bikini describes the journey
of Iroij Larkelon, the chief who brought his people from
neighbouring Wotje Atoll to Rongelap Atoll, where they
intermarried with the Rongelap people before sailing on to
Bikini. People were already living on Bikini, led by the chief
Laninbit. Faced with the bold Larkelon and his many people
and canoes, Laninbit conceded the lands and waters of
Bikini and sailed south with his people into the sunset never
to be heard from again (Niedenthal, 2002). Bikinians today
trace their lineage directly to Larkelon (Weisgall, 1994).
Traditional life on Bikini was much like life on other Micronesian atolls. Houses were small, simple thatched huts with
woven pandanus mats covering the ground. The few tools
and utensils were made only from the island’s resources:
wood, coral, shell and fibres from coconut and pandanus.
The Bikinians were accomplished seafarers, fishers and
agroforesters, integrating well-adapted technologies with
a spiritual and social life based on interaction with the
natural environment.
Bikinians had little contact with Europeans even after
German copra traders arrived and settled in the Marshall
Islands in the 1860s. Japan took control of most German
holdings in Micronesia at the outbreak of World War I and,
in 1919, was awarded the Marshall Islands as a mandate of
the League of Nations.
In February 1944, American forces liberated the Marshall
Islands. A year later, President Truman ordered the atomic
bombing of Hiroshima on August 6 and of Nagasaki on
August 9, 1945. The atom bomb had entered the world
and within a few weeks, Japan surrendered, ending the
war in the Pacific.
2
Bunker on Bikini Atoll © Nicole Baker
By the close of World War II, United States military planners
were working to select a site for the testing of atomic weapons on a naval fleet and, following consideration of more
than a dozen locations in the Pacific, Atlantic and Caribbean,
chose Bikini Atoll as the site for the major atomic experiment
known as Operation Crossroads. The test would, however,
require relocation of the atoll’s population.
500 photographers. More than 10,000 instruments, including some developed specifically for the tests at Bikini, were
placed on ships, aircraft and the surrounding islands. One
hundred and seventy journalists set up ‘a floating newsroom’
on the Appalachian (DeGroot, 2006, p. 119). The ninety-five
ships assembled as ‘targets’ formed the fifth or sixth largest
‘navy’ in the world at that time.
In February of 1946, Commodore Ben H. Wyatt, the military governor of the Marshalls, travelled to Bikini to ask the
Bikinians if they would be willing to temporarily leave their
atoll so that the United States could begin testing atomic
bombs for ‘the good of mankind and to end all world
wars.’ King Juda, then the leader of the Bikinian people,
stood up after much confused and sorrowful deliberation
among his people, and announced, ‘We will go, believing
that everything is in the hands of God.’
Test Able was carried out on July 1, 1946: A bomb named
‘Gilda’ was dropped from a B-29, and exploded 300 metres
above the lagoon. The submarine Test Baker followed on July
25, suspended 30 metres below the surface of the water. The
water column, holding 2 million tons of water, reached a mile
high within one second. Shock waves hit the islands at speeds
of over 5,000 kilometres per hour. A crater was carved in the
lagoon floor moving 2 million cubic metres of material, and
five ships and three other vessels were sunk.
Tens of thousands of military personnel, scientists, and
observers arrived as Bikini’s various islands and lagoon were
transformed into a massive military base. Forty-two thousand
men, 37 women nurses and 150 aircraft participated in what
the New York Times called the ‘most stupendous single set of
experiments in history’ (‘Star’s Secrets’, 1946). Two hundred
pigs, 200 mice, 60 guinea pigs, 204 goats and 5,000 rats were
exposed to the explosions to better understand the effects of
an atom bomb on humans (Shurcliff cited in Weisgall, 1994,
p. 120). More than 700 film and still cameras were set up
to record the event, 328 of these airborne, manned by over
Castle Bravo, was conducted at Bikini Atoll. Early in the morning on March 1, 1954 the device, code-named ‘Shrimp,’ was
detonated on the surface of the reef in the north-western
corner of Bikini Atoll. The area was illuminated by a huge
and expanding flash of blinding light. A raging fireball of
intense heat that measured into the millions of degrees shot
skyward at a rate of 500 kilometres an hour. Within minutes the monstrous cloud, filled with nuclear debris, shot
up more than 35 kilometres and generated winds hundreds
of kilometres per hour, blasting the surrounding islands and
stripping the branches and coconuts from the trees. Millions
47
2
Bikini Atoll: A small remote atoll of global significance
Below: Bikini Atoll showing the crater created by Castle Bravo nuclear test in 1954. © Nicole Baker
of tons of sand, coral, plant and sea life from Bikini’s reef,
from three islands and the surrounding lagoon waters, were
sent high into the air by the blast, leaving a crater more than
2 kilometres wide and 80 metres deep.
One-and-a-half hours after the explosion, 23 fishermen
aboard the Daigo Fukuryū-Maru (Lucky Dragon #5), a
Japanese fishing vessel, watched in awe as a ‘gritty white
ash’—which the Japanese came to know as shi no hai (the
ashes of death) (‘Ashes to Ashes,’ 1954)—began to fall on
them. Shortly after being exposed to the fallout their skin
began to itch and they experienced nausea and vomiting.
The boat’s return to Japan two weeks later and the death
of one crew member within months, from acute radiation
illness, was to have a resounding impact in Japan.
On Rongelap Atoll, about 150 km east of the test on Bikini,
John Anjain, at his breakfast at the time, describes the event:
On the morning of the ‘bomb’ I was awake and drinking
coffee. I thought I saw what appeared to be the sunrise,
but it was in the west. It was truly beautiful with many
colors—red, green and yellow—and I was surprised. A little
while later the sun rose in the east. Then some time later
48
something like smoke filled the entire sky and shortly after
that a strong and warm wind—as in a typhoon—swept
across Rongelap. Then all of the people heard the great
sound of the explosion. Some people began to cry with
fright. (Dibblin, 1990, p. 25)
Three to four hours after the blast, the white, snow-like
ash began to fall from the sky onto the 64 people living on
Rongelap and also onto the 18 people residing on Ailinginae Atoll. Lomoyo Abon describes the experience:
That night we couldn’t sleep, our skin itched so much. On
our feet were burns, as if from hot water. Our hair fell out.
We’d look at each other and laugh—you’re bald, you look
like an old man. But really we were frightened and sad.
(Dibblin, 1990, pp. 24-25)
Bravo, at 15 megatons, was a thousand times more powerful than the atomic bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki
and Hiroshima, and is to this day the largest detonation ever
conducted by the United States. While Operation Crossroads and the Castle Bravo tests were the most significant,
a total of 23 tests were carried out between 1946 and 1958
on Bikini, of a total of 67 tests in the Marshall Islands.
In 1946, the Bikinians were moved to Rongerik, a small atoll
that had been previously uninhabited due to a lack of food
and water resources, and a traditional belief that an evil
spirit lived there and contaminated the fish. On the verge
of starvation, in March 1948, the Bikinians were moved to
a tent city on Kwajalein Atoll while a new home was found
for them. In June the Bikinians selected Kili Island—a single
island with no lagoon or protected anchorage in the southern Marshall Islands—because the island was not ruled by
a paramount king, or iroij, and was uninhabited.
In August of 1969 planning commenced for the resettlement of Bikini Atoll. This work involved the clearing of the
radioactive debris on Bikini and Eneu Islands, accomplished
by bulldozers being driven methodically between the trees
in neat rows creating a massive grid pattern over the entire
islands, replanting of the atoll and constructing housing.
In 1972 three extended Bikinian families, their desire to
return to Bikini being great enough to outweigh the alleged
radiological dangers, moved back to Bikini Island and into
the newly constructed houses, accompanied by approximately 50 Marshallese construction workers. The population of islanders on Bikini slowly increased to about 100
2
people until in June of 1975, a review of the scientific data
found that the local foods grown on Bikini Island, including
pandanus, breadfruit and coconut crabs, were too radioactive for human consumption. In April of 1978 medical
examinations performed by US physicians revealed radiation
levels in many of the now 139 people on Bikini to be well
above the US maximum permissible level and the Bikinians
were once again removed from their cherished islands.
By late 1972, Bikini’s landscape, both above and below the
surface of the water, reflected its transformation. Bikini
was and remains the world’s first large-scale nuclear landscape—an area of the globe forever transformed by nuclear
testing, and this landscape remains essentially untouched
and unaltered. The obvious physical changes, as well as the
fallout remaining in the islands’ soil, bear testimony to the
enormous destructive power of the technology that was
demonstrated here. The lonely rows of coconut palms,
planted in the hope the Bikinians could return to their home
and resume their way of life, now symbolize the loss of this
way of life forever. Bikini has stood as a monument and
memorial to loss of innocence from the moment it was chosen. Even prior to the testing, E.B. White (March 9, 1946)
wrote in the New Yorker:
49
2
Bikini Atoll: A small remote atoll of global significance
Bikini Lagoon, although we have never seen it, begins to
seem like the one place in the world we cannot spare… it
grows increasingly valuable in our eyes—the lagoon, the
low-lying atoll, the steady wind from the east, the palms
in the wind, the quiet natives who live without violence. It
all seems unspeakably precious, like a lovely child stricken
with a fatal disease (in Weisgall, 1994).
The trace, memory and spirit of the time of Bikini Atoll as a
nuclear test site is recorded in films, photos, journalism, technical reports, oral histories, memoirs and works of art. The
mechanisms by which Bikini Atoll functions as a monument
and a memorial is expanded from the tangible by the inclusion of symbols, works of art and representations of Bikini
that have accompanied the process of its journey from a
beloved, beautiful home to an abandoned nuclear test site.
Bikini Atoll bears witness to individual events that represent turning points in the world’s history of global significance—in particular Operation Crossroads in 1946 and the
Castle Bravo detonation in 1954. Operation Crossroads
occurred at a time of awkward diplomacy between the
Soviets and the Americans, and the display of power by
the US conflicted with ongoing efforts to place nuclear
weapons under the control of the United Nations, thus
contributing significantly to the distrust and paranoia that
characterized the start of the Cold War. The cover article
for Time magazine, on July 1, 1946 speaks of the ‘Tremor
of Finality’ of Operation Crossroads:
Against the peaceful backdrop of palm frond and pandanus,
on this most ‘backward’ of islands, the most progressive of
centuries would write in one blinding stroke of disintegration
the inner meaning of technological civilization: all matter is
speed and flame. (Time Magazine ‘Crossroads,’ July 1, 1946)
Just as the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki had brought the theories of nuclear physicists
into a terrible reality, the world’s first deliverable hydrogen
bomb was to shock the world, directly giving rise to the
nuclear disarmament movement. The Castle Bravo event,
although conducted in great secrecy would, very publicly,
introduce the world to ‘fallout.’ Aside from the bombs
dropped on civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no other single nuclear weapons event has had this
scale of impact on the world.
The United States, the United Kingdom and France all
tested nuclear devices in the Pacific between 1946 and
1996, enabled by their colonial histories in the region. The
process of Pacific nuclear colonialism finally gave rise to
the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement based
on the understanding of Pacific peoples that nuclear tests
could be halted only if their countries were decolonized
and became sovereign nations.
However, nuclear colonialism was not restricted to the
Pacific and Bikini Atoll, now unpeopled, stands as exemplary
testimony to a lost way of life on behalf of all victims of
50
nuclear colonialism. Over 2,050 nuclear devices have been
detonated worldwide in the years since 1945. Major testing programmes were carried out by the United States, the
Soviet Union, France and Britain (in conjunction with Australia). Countries that carried out lesser programmes are China,
India, Pakistan and North Korea. Some test sites are household names, such as Nevada, Maralinga, Trinity and Moruroa. Other sites are less familiar: Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, Kiritimati
(Christmas Island) in Kiribati, Lop Nur in western China, and
Novaya Zemlya in the Barents Sea. All the sites used for testing bear irreversible scars telling their powerful stories of lost
lands, lost health, and lost cultures and ways of life.
Bikini is isolated, remote and difficult to access—all reasons
why it was chosen as a site for nuclear testing, therefore
much of its meaning as the world’s heritage is contained in
the representations of Bikini as a place, and the portrayal of
the events of Bikini to the world. What was to the Bikinians
their homeland, a place of abundance and life, was represented to the world as a ‘deserted Isle’ (Davis, 2005), a
barren and uninhabited terra nullius distant from the home
population of the testing nation. Representations of Bikini
were made in the form of films, radio broadcasts, magazines and leading newspapers such as the New York Times,
thus legitimizing the use of Bikini as a test site.
Emanating from this narrow circle of tiny islands in the
middle of a vast ocean is a myriad of symbolism that
has permeated our global culture. The mushroom cloud
creates a focal point for the values attributed to nuclear
weapons—enormous power, fear of spectacular annihilation, and later, of radioactive fallout. Godzilla initially arose
from the Pacific Ocean floor as the very embodiment of
nuclear devastation and radioactivity, a manifestation of
Japan’s terror of the bomb. The bikini swimming costume
and SpongeBob Square Pants are icons of popular culture,
one created before the world truly understood nuclear
weapons, and the other devised long after the threat of
nuclear weapons was anything but a backdrop—a cultural
wallpaper. In line with the high technology of the bomb
testing, these icons are modern and technological themselves—truly late 20th century popular culture.
It was through images of mushroom clouds that information about nuclear tests was made available to the public.
Initially, photographs of the mushroom clouds were shown
to Bikinians living on Rongerik to explain what was happening on Bikini. In 1954 Life magazine issued a pictorial
special about the hydrogen bomb tests (April 19, 1954).
The mushroom cloud became a potent symbol used both
by the military, and by the anti-nuclear movement. Rosenthal (1991) describes the significance of the mushroom
cloud as a cultural symbol:
‘A quarter century after the nuclear mushroom cloud has
been seen in real life, it remains the unchallenged symbol
of the nuclear age because its name, shape, and size make
it adequate to carry all the meanings we need for it to bear.
Clearly a culmination of the scientific knowledge our century values supremely, the mushroom cloud stands as apt
image of science’s power over nature… Clearly a power of
life-and-death proportions, the mushroom cloud stands as
appropriate symbol for our secular age’s placing in human
hands the judgment once assumed to be in God’s. And
in its remarkable receptivity to projections upon it of even
vaguely congruent images, …the mushroom cloud projects back the array of human responses to all that it stands
for: responses of pride, parochial possessiveness, creative
resistance, denial, despair.’ (p.88)
Originally named ‘le Atome’ for its small size by its French
designers, Louis Réard and Jacques Heim, the skimpy twopiece swimming costume was launched upon the world
as ‘le Bikini’ on July 5, 1946, just days after the first test at
Bikini Atoll.
The first Godzilla movie (Gojira, 1954) appeared just months
after the Bravo test. In the film, American nuclear weapons
testing in the Pacific awakens a seemingly unstoppable,
radioactive dinosaur-like beast that attacks Tokyo. Salvador
Dali, in his 1947 painting ‘The Three Sphinxes of Bikini,’
presents us with images of the mushroom cloud mixed
with images of trees and of the human head, suggesting
the interaction of man, nature and atomic weapons.
The very same month of the return of the Daigo Fukuryū–
Maru to Japan, a group of middle-class housewives from
Tokyo began the ‘Suginami Appeal’ – a campaign against
the hydrogen bomb which became a nationwide movement, collecting 32 million signatures – about one-third of
the Japanese population—by the following year. In August
1955, the First World Conference against Atomic and
Hydrogen Bombs was held in Hiroshima, leading directly to
the establishment of Gensuikyo: The Japan Council against
Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs. The reach and significance
of the Gensuikyo organization in the anti-nuclear movement is demonstrated by the petition of over 100 million
signatures presented in 2000 to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs in support of a total ban of nuclear weapons.
The horror of the Bravo test quickly gave rise to antinuclear
sentiment globally, prompting Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru of India to propose a ban on nuclear testing in April
1954 and provoking Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein to
write the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, launched at the first
Pugwash conference in July 1955 and signed by the leading scientists of the time. The influential Pugwash movement was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.
2
References
Ashes to Ashes. (October 4, 1954). Time Magazine.
Retrieved December 8, 2008 from http://www.time.
com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,857552,00.html.
Crossroads. (July 1, 1946). Time Magazine. Retrieved
December 8, 2008 from http://www.time.com/
time/magazine/article/0,9171,803775,00.html
Davis, J.S. (2005). Representing Place: ‘‘Deserted
Isles’’ and the Reproduction of Bikini Atoll. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers,
95(3), pp. 607-625.
DeGroot., G. J. (2006). The Bomb: A Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Dibblin, J. (1990). Day of Two Suns: US Nuclear
Testing and the Pacific Islanders. New York: New
Amsterdam Books.
Hamilton, T.F & Robison, W.L. (2004). Overview
of Radiological Conditions on Bikini Atoll UCRLMI208228. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory, University of California.
Introducing the Japan Council against Atomic and
Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo). (n.d.). Retrieved.
December 8, 2008 from http://www.antiatom.org/
GSKY/en/discription_gensuikyo.htm
Niedenthal, J. (2002). For the Good of Mankind:
A History of the People of Bikini and their Islands.
Majuro: Bravo Publishers.
Rosenthal, P. (1991). The nuclear mushroom cloud
as cultural image. American Literary History, 3(1),
pp. 63-92.
Russell, B. & Einstein, A. (July 9, 1955). The
Russell-Einstein Manifesto. Issued in London, 1955.
Retrieved December 9, 2008 from http://www.
pugwash.org/about/manifesto.htm
Laurence, W.L. (April 24, 1946). Star’s Secrets May
Unfold to Myriad Gauges at Bikini. Special to the
New York Times. New York Times, pp.1,7.
Weisgall, J. M. (1994). Operation Crossroads: The
Atomic Tests at Bikini Atoll. Annapolis, Maryland:
Naval Institute Press.
Nuclear bomb tests at Bikini Atoll shaped the history of the
people of Bikini, and the history of the entire world. Bikini
Atoll now stands testimony to the dawn of the nuclear
age, the start of the Cold War and the era of nuclear colonialism—stages in human history of outstanding global
significance. The World Heritage List recognises not only
the monumental and the celebrated, and by the inscription
of this tiny, remote atoll we are reminded that our shared
history penetrates even the most isolated places on Earth.
51
2
Levuka, Fiji: The Heritage of
Culture Contact in the Pacific
Sipiriano Nemani, Fiji Department of National Heritage
Anaseini Kalougata, Fiji Department of National Heritage
The historic port town of Levuka is Fiji’s first World
Heritage nomination, submitted to the World Heritage committee in 2012. This property is also the first
nomination from a Pacific Island country to recognise the outstanding values of historic built heritage
and the processes of culture contact that took place
across the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean during
the colonial era.
The town of Levuka on the small island of Ovalau, was
the first colonial capital of Fiji, a fortuitous survivor of the
cyclones, and storms and fires that along with recent urban
development have destroyed colonial towns elsewhere in
the Pacific. The development of the town of Levuka in
the 19th century followed a pattern similar to that seen
across the Pacific Islands. A small beachcomber settlement was established adjacent to the indigenous village
on the beach at Levuka in the 1820s/30s with the permission and patronage of the local Chief the Tui Levuka.
The settlement and village grew to a thriving port town
and regional centre by the 1850s and when the British
formally annexed the Fiji Islands in 1874, the Deed of Cession was signed at Levuka where the colonial capital was
established. The town rapidly outgrew the small strip of
land between the sea and the hills behind and this along
with political and economic factors led the British authorities to move the capital to its present location of Suva in
1882 but not before the chaotic, random and notoriously
smelly and drunken port of the 1850s and 1860s had been
remodelled as a centre of the colonial government – with
all the institutions of respectability and governance that
characterised the global signature of the British Empire.
In Levuka these were and are visible today in a distinctly
Pacific Island and vernacular form, a response to the indigenous culture and the geography of the Pacific Islands.
The town consists of Beach Street along the sea front and
several adjoining streets and laneways running up into
the hills behind. These are associated with creek lines that
run down from the interior of the island, alongside which
are paths that now and in the pre-contact era connected
the inland villages to the coastal village of Levuka. The
town’s built heritage includes buildings – residential, commercial and industrial – and infrastructure plus a number
52
of historic buildings and monuments outside the town’s
perimeter. Many buildings retain their original function,
including administrative buildings, schools, churches,
residences, shops, and other workplaces. The surviving
churches, school, and the government buildings were the
first of their kind in Fiji. Several important shipwrecks lie
in the harbor.
In 1990 Fiji was the first of the Pacific Island countries to
become a signatory to the World Heritage Convention and
the historic port town of Levuka was the first property on
Fiji’s tentative list, submitted in 1999. The historic qualities
of Levuka had been of interest to tourists since the 1970s
and the possibility of a World Heritage nomination had
been mooted as early as the mid-1980s (Takano 1996) but
it was not until the Department of National Heritage was
established in 2000 that the Government of Fiji had a key
role in initiatives for a World Heritage nomination that had
begun a decade earlier. The early initiatives had involved the
Fiji Museum and National Trust of Fiji which, while statutory organisations, did not have enough resources (human
and physical) nor influence to convince Government of the
importance of this initiative. These institutions did however
have well established and strong international networks and
connections which assisted them in their continued efforts
to maintain and raise awareness of the heritage values
of Levuka. In this context, in 2002 the Fijian Government
began to explore the potential World Heritage values of
Levuka though a lengthy programme of community consultation and through a comparative analysis as required in any
future nomination dossier in justification of the outstanding
universal values of the property (Smith, 2003).
The focus of early conservation efforts in Levuka had been
the town’s architectural heritage contributing to perceptions of Levuka as simply the ‘heritage of colonialism’.
From 2000 systematic archaeological research and intensive mapping, oral history recording and analysis of the
cultural landscape of the town as a (Burley, Chatan and
Purser, 2002; Purser, 2003) revealed the deeper complex
history of the development of the town, not as a snapshot
of a particular period but a palimpsest of cultural layers
and interactions from pre-European contact through the
historic period.
2
Beach Street, Levuka, Fiji © Anita Smith
In all parts of the globe initial European settlement was characterised by the negotiation of social and cultural differences
between Indigenous and European systems of authority
creating social, cultural and political forms that reflect this
contact. Levuka is both the outstanding and representative
example of the important interchange of human values and
cultural contact that took place as part of the process of
European maritime expansion in the Pacific Islands. The town
bears testimony to this cultural contact and in the town’s
archaeological, built and maritime heritage and landscape
features continues to reflect the negotiation between the
indigenous Fijian and British systems of authority in the late
19th century. A challenge in developing a nomination for
Levuka was to understand and articulate the values of the
‘heritage of colonialism’ as an outcome of interaction rather
than imposition, avoiding what in this context is an artificial
distinction between ‘European’ and ‘Indigenous’ values as
they are reflected in the fabric of the town.
Key to the development of the nomination has been the
process of community consultation, not only with the
town’s residents but the indigenous communities of Ovalau Island in general. The consultation process involved
raising awareness of the local, national and international
heritage values of the town and the World Heritage process in general. The aim has been to enable communities
to make informed decisions as to whether they considered
the nomination to be a worthwhile initiative. The island’s
communities needed to be convinced that inscription of the
property on the World Heritage List would have benefits
to the local population and the nation in as far as social,
cultural and economic returns are concerned.
References Burley, D., R.Chatan and M.Purser, eds., 2002
Archaeological Investigations: Totoga Creek and
Vicinity. In Historic Levuka Archaeological Project.
Suva: Fiji Museum and National Trust of Fiji.
Purser, M., 2003 The View From the Verandah:
Levuka Bungalows and the Transformation of Settler Identities in Later Colonialism International Journal of Historical Archaeology. 7 (4): pp. 293-314.
Smith, A. 2003 A Comparative Analysis of
Levuka. Unpublished report to the National Trust
of Fiji, Suva.
Smith, A. 2008. Levuka, Fiji: A Case Study
in Pacific Islands Heritage Management, in
Archaeology of Oceania: Australia and the
Pacific Islands (ed I. Lilley), Blackwell Publishing
Ltd, Oxford, UK pp. 346-362.
Takano, G., 1996 Learning from Levuka: Fiji
Preservation in the First Colonial Capital Cultural
Resource Management 19: pp. 15-17.
53
2
Transnational Values in the development
of a World Heritage nomination for the
Sacred site of Taputapuätea/Te Po,
Valley of Öpoa, French Polynesia
Senator Ariihau Tuheiava, Senator for French Polynesia
The monumental ceremonial stone marae of Taputapuātea
in the Valley of Ōpoä on the island of Ra’iātea, in the Society
Islands of French Polynesia is recognised by the indigenous
communities of the Polynesian triangle as the heart of
their ancestral homeland and the centre of a voyaging network stretching north to the Hawai’ian Islands and west to
Aotearoa/New Zealand. The Valley of Ōpoä is an outstanding
example of the traditional and continuing cultural landscapes
of East Polynesia and their associated social and cultural practices and bears exceptional testimony to the evolution of East
Polynesian culture and the technological achievements of
Polynesian peoples. In 2010 France added ‘The Sacred site of
Taputapuätea/Te Po, Valley of Öpoa’ also known as ‘Te Marae
Taputapuatea i Opoa, Puna no te Ao Ma’ohito’ to their Tentative List on Criteria iii, iv, v and vi. A World Heritage nomination for the property is in development under the auspices
of the Government of French Polynesia.
The Society Islands lie at the geographic centre of the
Polynesian triangle, a huge expanse of the Pacific Ocean
stretching from Hawai’i in the north to Easter Island in the
east and New Zealand in the southwest. Canoes guided
by skilled navigators first arrived in the Society Islands
from western Polynesia around 1500 years ago during the
rapid exploration and settlement of the far flung, remote
islands of East Polynesia. People settled in communities
on the islands but remained connected through voyaging
networks and the development of an inter-island alliance
that united the chiefdoms of the Society Islands, Rarotonga
(Cook Islands) Rotuma (Fiji) and New Zealand. The centre
of this alliance was the Marae Taputapuātea in the Valley of
Opoa and it was from here that the great voyaging canoes
left for the long journeys to remote islands, including
Aotearoa (New-Zealand) and Hawai’i.
Taputapuātea is the largest in a complex of marae and
other stone structures. Marae are powerful places in East
Polynesian culture. In the Society Islands each marae is
linked to a genealogy, a title (or titles) and a place, a region
of the earth and dedicated to a deified ancestor, one of
the many gods or atua in the Polynesian pantheon. Marae
served as a link between the people living in the visible
world (Ao) and in the invisible realm of ancestors (Pō). A
new marae was founded using a stone brought from an
54
ancient marae, linking these sacred sites and their genealogies together across Polynesia. Marae Taputapuātea is
the largest marae in East Polynesia measuring about sixty
meters long and 45 meters wide. The immense platform is
constructed of basalt boulders. At the eastern end stands
the ahu, a huge platform constructed of large slabs of coral
over three metres in height.
For the Polynesian communities the sea has symbolic and
religious importance. The islands were discovered and
populated by navigators who followed the stars, maintained contact with each other, sometimes over very long
distances, by means of exceptional sailing skills passed
down over generations. Inter-island voyaging took place
on large canoes (va’a), their construction strictly regulated
by religious rituals, which were stored near the marae. The
marae themselves may be spoken of as va’a pulled up on
shore, having arrived at their final destination. The Ocean
itself was considered the supreme marae, where travellers
could dedicate their worship to their ancestors when they
were far away from their family’s marae.
Ra’iatea, the sacred island, was formerly known as Havai’i nui
and recognised by Polynesian people across the Polynesian
triangle as their ancestral homeland. Marae Taputapuātea
and the surrounding marae complex was built at a place
named Te Pō, the tapu or sacred realm where the gods are
present. Te Pō is on Matahirä-i-te-ra’i, a small promontory
in front of Te Ava Mo’a the sacred pass through the reef.
Behind Te Pō the Ōpoä Valley is enclosed by the mountains
Tea’etapu and Rohutu, the dwelling place for the spirits
of deceased. According to the oral traditions of Ra’iātea,
Ta’aroa, the father of all Polynesian gods and creator of all
things, entered the earth in the valley of Ōpoä on Havai’i.
This event was commemorated by the construction of the
Marae Vaeara’i at the place where Ta’aroa put his foot on
earth for the first time, and from which the foundation
stone for marae Taputapuātea was later taken.
Taputapuātea: the international marae
Taputapuātea is known as the international marae, unique in
Polynesia, its importance extending far beyond Ra’iātea and
the Society Islands, to Aotearoa/New Zealand and Hawai’i.
2
Elders of Na Papa E Va’u with Senator Ariihau Tuheiava on Marae Taputapuatea, Opoa, Rai’atea Island French Polynesia,
2007. L-R Papa Marehoe, Papa Nehemia, Papa Timi, Papa Pua, Senator Tuheiava. The Sacred site of Taputapuätea/Te Po,
Valley of Öpoa also known as ‘Te Marae Taputapuatea i Opoa, Puna no te Ao Ma’ohito’ was included on the Tentative List of
France in 2011. © Anita Smith
Prior to the coming of Europeans, the district of Ōpoä and
its marae Tapu-tapu-tea was at the center of an inter-island
alliance named Hau faatau aroha, or ‘chiefdoms establishing alliances’, which brought together two groups of
islands: the ‘Dark world’ (Te-ao-uri) encompassing the east
coast of Ra’i-ātea, Huahine and Tahiti Islands and the ‘Light
world’ (Te-ao-tea) which included the west coast of Ra’iātea
and the other Society Islands as well as Rarotonga (Cook
islands), Rotuma and Aotearoa/New Zealand. According
to the oral traditions, the representatives of these islands
periodically gathered for ceremonies at Ōpoä, at times set
according to a traditional calender based on the stars and
seasons. By the 17th century, marae Taputapuātea was
dedicated to one of the sons of Ta’aroa, ‘Oro, god of
beauty, fertility and war and the centre for the rituals of the
‘Arioi, a society whose members worshipped the god ‘Oro.
The ‘Arioi, sailing on sacred canoes guided by priests who
navigated by the stars, spread the cult of ‘Oro throughout
eastern Polynesia, bringing with them new beliefs, ideas
and forms of socio-political organisation.
For these reasons, one can find marae known as Taputapuātea
in the Society Islands, Tuamotu Archipelago, the Austral
Islands and Cook Islands. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, there
are also sites named Taputapuātea, and cultural places where
stones from Taputapuātea were brought and placed by the
ancient navigators. In New Zealand, the Tongariro National
Park, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1993 (1990)
traces back to the priest Ngatoroirangi, who came from
Ra’iatea aboard the canoe Te Arawa. This site thus possesses
a direct genealogical connection with the site Taputapuātea/
Te P. In the archipelago of the Hawai’ian Islands, there are
three heiau (Hawaiian temples) named Kapukapuakea on
the islands of O’ahu, Kaua’i and Moloka’i.
The sacred complex Taputapuātea/Te P is the most significant
place for the expression of Polynesian identity. Communities
of the Polynesian triangle maintain a strong spiritual attachment to Taputapuātea/Te P as the place of cultural gatherings which continue to be held on the site and reinforce
the historical and cultural links between the Polynesian communities whose ancestors set out by canoe from Ōpoä. Cultural representatives from islands of the Polynesian triangle
regularly gather on the marae. Its spiritual role is manifested
as a symbol of common origin for Polynesian communities,
which are today separated by national borders.
Transnational values of Taputapuätea/Te
Po, Valley of Öpoa
The site of Taputapuätea/Te Po, Valley of Öpoa therefore
has transnational values, that is, the site is recognised as
sacred and the ancestral homeland by Polynesian communities not just in French Polynesia but in Hawaii, New Zealand,
Cook Islands and Rapa Nui and is linked to the initial settlement and histories of these islands and island groups. Given
this the development of a World Heritage nomination for
the property is involving extensive consultations with representatives of Polynesian communities in Hawai’i, Aotearoa,
Cook Islands, and Rapa Nui all of who have strong cultural,
historic and contemporary connections to the site. Since
2007 these consultations have included cultural exchanges
between representatives from these countries and the local
community in Öpoa, the custodians of the; meetings and
55
2
Transnational Values in the development of a World Heritage nomination for the Sacred site
of Taputapuätea/Te Po, Valley of Öpoa, French Polynesia
discussion with cultural leaders in their respective countries;
and discussions at regional meetings under the auspices of
the UNESCO Pacific 2009 programme. Given the shared
transnational values of Taputapuätea/Te Po, Valley of Öpoa
it is critical that Polynesian communities across the Pacific
are supportive of the values as they are presented to the
international community in the nomination dossier.
Looking across the Opoa Valley, Raiatea, French Polynesia from
Marae Vaeara’i. © Anita Smith
The property has the potential to be nominated as a serial
transnational cultural property. As described, the property
has transnational associations with Polynesian voyaging
and navigation and these along with historical and genealogical connections of communities across the Polynesian
triangle are also reflected in the cultural values of a number
of heritage places in these countries. These include:
• T ongariro National Park, near the Lake Taupo
(Aotearoa/New Zealand) inscribed on the World
Heritage List on cultural criteria in 1993;
• National Marine Monument of Papahänaumokuäkea inscribed on the World Heritage List
as a mixed site in 2010.
• H
awaii Volcanoes National Park (USA) inscribed on
the World Heritage List on natural criteria in 1987
• R
apa Nui National Park (Chile) inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1995
• P u’ukohola Heiau National Historic Site
(Hawai’i, U.S.A.);
• Royal marae of Taputapuätea at Avarua
(Rarotonga, Cook Islands)
• C
ape Reinga or (Te Rerenga Wairua), the
‘leaping-off place of spirits’ for Maori (North Island,
Aotearoa/New Zealand)
• Avana Pass (Rarotonga, Cook Islands)
All these sites have historical and cultural associations with
Taputapuätea/Te Po in French Polynesia through ancestral
voyaging and genealogies. A transnational serial nomination would recognise the coherence of the shared values of
these properties. There are a number of issues specific to
the Pacific region that need to be addressed in the future
development of a serial nomination:
1. Several of the properties that may be considered for
inclusion in a future serial nomination are located
in territories under sovereignty external to the
region namely French Polynesia (France), Hawai’i
(USA) and Rapa Nui (Chile) where the Indigenous
communities whose values would be recognised
in a potential serial nomination, are a minority of
the population. This is also the case for Maori in
Aotearoa/New Zealand. Given this, the development of a serial nomination of Polynesian cultural
heritage may not be a priority for these States Parties. Fostering regional cooperation to develop an
overarching management plan for a transnational
serial property also presents a challenge given those
communities whose values are to be managed are
56
not decision-makers in government. A future serial
nomination will require extensive lobbying and
negotiation with and between States Parties.
2. There is a disparity in the levels of knowledge, skills
and extent of implementation of the World Heritage
in the Pacific Island States. Although some countries
have ratified the Convention more than 20 years
ago, most independent Pacific Island States have
done so only in the last decade, the Cook Islands
being the most recent in 2009. This makes it difficult for all countries potentially involved in a serial
nomination to progress at an equal rate.
3. Although the values of properties to be considered
in a serial nomination are similar, their expression in
tangible and/or intangible evidence differs between
countries requiring a carefully negotiated common approach to agreeing on and articulating the
values and a preliminary stage of harmonization of
traditional knowledge and customary protocols.
4. The Pacific region is not well served by air transport
and represents a third of the globe. This means the
funds required to facilitate the essential community
consultation and participation for any transnational
serial nomination are prohibitive and limit regional
cooperation between community representatives
The nomination currently under development for Taputapuätea/Te Po is a single cultural property. Consultations are
continuing to facilitate and develop future extension of the
property to create a serial transnational property that will
more fully reflect the shared values and histories of East
Polynesian peoples.
‘Yapese Stone Money’:
A Transboundary Serial
Nomination from Micronesia
A serial transboundary nomination of ‘Yapese
Stone Money’ celebrates the traditional
exchange systems, technology and outstanding voyaging and navigation skills that
characterize the heritage of the tiny islands of
Micronesia. The Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau are putting
forward the transboundary nomination which
includes components in the archipelagos of
Palau and Yap. Palau lies about 600km east
of the Philippines. The Yap islands are located
a further 500km to the north-east.
In the past, the people of Yap voyaged across
open sea to Palau to quarry the limestone for
their megalithic disk money or Rai which they
then transported to Yap for use in traditional
social transactions. The Yapese earned the
right to quarry the limestone by bartering
or exchanging exotic materials and forming
alliances with villages in Palau. According to
oral tradition, the chiefs of Yap offered gifts
to the chiefs of Palau in return for quarrying
rights. Many Yapese traditions attest to the
origin and importance of this exchange system.
One tradition records that a Yapese navigator
named Anagumang first discovered the stone
in a Palauan cave and ordered his men to cut
2
it into the shape of a fish and then into a full
moon, and that a hole was put in the moon
shape to make it easier to carry. The stones
were quarried and shaped in Palau, their size
varying widely but the largest up to 3 metres
in diameter. The quarried Rai were taken by
canoe to Yap where they would be distributed
by the village chief who was the sponsor of the
quarrying expedition. The discs were placed
in front of residences, meeting houses or
along pathways, termed “money banks” and
exchanged in important family events including
births, name-giving rites and marriage and
to make amends for an insult, for support in
conflict, loans, gifts or purchase of goods.
The nominated property includes quarry sites
on Palau and ‘money bank’ ceremonial sites
on Yap. The production of the stone money
and their transport across the open ocean
represents an exceptional example of human
technological and engineering achievement
and an outstanding example of traditional
cultural exchange systems.
Reference:
Fitzpatrick, S. 2010 ‘Transboundary
Nomination for Yapese Stone Money
Sites in Palau and Yap’. UNESCO
World Heritage Nomination prepared
for the Palau Historic Preservation
Office, Koror, and the Yap Historic
Preservation Office, Colonia.
Yapese Stone Money on the island of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. ‘Yapese Stone Money’ has been nominated as a
serial transboundary property by the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. © Christophe Sand
57
58
World Heritage and
Community in the Pacific
3
Courtesy of Vanuatu Cultural Centre
59
3
Community and governance in the
World Heritage property of East Rennell
Kasia Gabrys, Department of Environment and Resources Management, Queensland, Australia
Mike Heywood, Queensland, Australia
East Rennell World Heritage Site (ERWHS), the southern third of Rennell Island, lies 180 km south of Guadalcanal, the main island of the Solomon Islands. The
property consists of 370 km2 land-mass plus a marine
component extending three nautical miles out to sea
(Fig 1). Rennell Island is the largest raised coral atoll
in the world while Lake Tegano, at the centre of the
World Heritage Site, is the largest lake in the insular Pacific. East Rennell was inscribed on the World
Heritage List in 1998 under natural criterion (ii) being
important bio-geographically, especially the avifauna
and significant on-going ecological and biological
processes and evolution of species (UNESCO, 1998).
The inscription of East Rennell was a first in the history of the
Convention in that the World Heritage Committee recognised the traditional management practices of the people of
East Rennell to be a viable and credible means of protecting
biodiversity (UNESCO, 1998). Alongside this, it was also recognised that protection and management of the outstanding
universal values of the property is dependent on the people
of East Rennell achieving sustainable livelihoods. However,
the question of whether conservation and sustainable livelihood objectives can be successfully integrated remains contested (Agrawal and Redford 2006; Marshall 2005; De Haan
2000). For UNESCO, this is an issue of particular concern
with properties listed under the natural criteria of the Operational Guidelines (Criteria vii – x) (UNESCO, 1998). In a site
such as East Rennell this is complicated by the critical issue of
a lack of sustainable livelihoods of local people that in turn
can affect the future protection and management of the values of the property. The inclusion of only a third of the island
in the inscription further complicates this issue. The people
of East Rennell do not have access to the benefits that the
people of West Rennell receive from logging companies and
bauxite mining prospectors.
Approximately 600 Rennellese people reside in the World
Heritage property across the four lakeside villages Hutuna,
Tebaitahe, Tegano and Niupani. The inhabitants comprise
of one ethnic Polynesian group who speak a single Polynesian language, though Solomons Pidgin is widely used
when communicating with outsiders. Many people are
now Christian and this has had some impact on tradi-
60
tional cultural practices, the South Sea Evangelical Church
(SSEC) and the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) having
imposed tabus around certain cultural activities (e.g. dancing, tattooing).
The main form of land use is subsistence agriculture based
around root crops, especially sweet potato, cassava and
taro. Arable land on this coral atoll is limited, particularly
in East Rennell where the land mass is dominated by Lake
Tegano and coral cliffs. The Island has serious food security
issues, with failing local crops and irregular delivery of food
by barge. The local economy is limited to small scale sales
of local goods derived from subsistence hunting, fishing
and crafts, with only 12 per cent of the population of the
province engaged in paid employment.
The Province of Rennell and Bellona remains economically
underdeveloped due to its remoteness, the wantok30 system and lack of resources, transport and managerial skills.
There is limited communication, shops, electricity, schools,
or general services, no provincial hospital and limited sanitation. It is one of the least visited provinces in the Solomon
Islands, with only about 30 tourists per year (Foimua 2006).
Less than half of these tourists visit the World Heritage Site
due to unreliable and expensive road transport from the air
strip which is situated on the opposite side of the island.
Progress towards sustainable livelihoods for the people of
East Rennell has been slow and little has changed since the
inscription of the property (Tabbasum and Dingwall 2005).
Some reasons for this include civil unrest in the Solomon
Islands from 2000-2005, limited government capacity and a
lack of an avenue for direct engagement with international
donors. In addition, like many other community-managed
protected areas, the people of East Rennell have limited
capacity and funding to undertake the difficult and complex
task of managing a protected area (Seixas and Davy 2008).
At the time of the inscription process it was believed that
the local traditional structure of management via the East
30. ‘Wantok’ is a terminology for a social system of sharing between family
relations. The high pressure to share wealth, discourage many individuals to want to succeed in accumulating additional resources.
3
Lake Tegano, East Rennell World Heritage site, Solomon Islands. © Anita Smith
Rennell Council of Chiefs was functional. With increasing
pressures to engage with the cash economy, internal disputes over land ownership and increasing Church authority,
the effectiveness of this system started to falter. The Council
of Chiefs was largely made up of elderly men who lived from
the land. Though the Council still had some local traditional
authority over land ownership, they possessed little Western
knowledge. Instead, a younger, entrepreneurial and Western-educated group of men was starting to dominate East
Rennell politics. In many instances these men were considered to only have land user and not land owner rights. Never-the-less many gained local support through the running
of small businesses and livelihood projects largely instigated
by New Zealand Government through NZAid. This power
shift created a gap in inclusive decision making structures.
With an increasing reliance on the cash economy, linking
sustainable livelihoods to the management of the World
Heritage property became essential, with potentially comanagement providing an opportunity for developing an
alternative process. Community-conserved areas often end
up changing to co-managed protected areas to attract external support (Mulongoy and Chape 2004, p.18). Transferring
the management model from community-conserved to a comanaged or ‘shared governance’ model by non-government
and/or government organisations can help to move a project
forward, by attracting funding, technical and legislative support (IUCN 2008). This paper briefly looks at an attempt by
external organisations to work with local people to implement a governance model in ERWHS while simultaneously
supporting sustainable livelihoods and conservation of site
values. The premise of this approach being that; to sustainably manage a protected area inhabited by people, local sustainable livelihoods cannot be separated from conservation.
Project background
Following inscription of the property in 1998, a locally
based and appointed East Rennell management committee, linked to the Solomon Islands national and provincial
governments, was developed with assistance of NZAid.
Two local coordinators were appointed to implement livelihood projects including eco-tourism lodges and small
food-outlet businesses. The New Zealand support ceased
with civil unrest in the Solomon Islands in 2001. In 2006
UNESCO World Heritage Fund provided funding for a consultant, Laurie Wein to develop a Plan of Management for
East Rennell, the East Rennell World Heritage Site Management Plan, 2007 with the communities of East Rennell
in 2006 in fulfilment of the requirements set out by the
World Heritage Committee with its listing of East Rennell
in 1998.
In 2007 to implement the management plan, the Solomon
Islands Government sought support from Australia through
the Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) which in
turn received funding from AusAID’s Pacific Governance
Support Program (PGSP) for the project ‘Strengthening
Management Capacity in the East Rennell World Heritage
Area’ (see McMahon this volume). The project provided
for the placement of two Australian volunteers (Australian Volunteers International) on East Rennell, a Management Advisor and an Eco-Tourism Advisor for 18 months
between 2008 and 2009. They were the first advisors and
westerners to move to the island under the World Heritage
programme. This paper is written from one of the advisor’s points of view who simultaneously conducted socialscience research on the local engagement process.
61
3
Community and governance in the World Heritage property of East Rennell
On arrival the advisors consulted local people, government
officials and Non-Government Organisations (NGO) representatives. Twenty-eight individual interviews and 19 open
meetings were held at each of the four lakeside villages,
engaging some 200 local participants and 10 external key
organisational representatives. These meetings aimed to
ascertain people’s aspirations and concerns, and to form
partnerships and educate people about World Heritage and
governance. The approach of engaging the various stakeholders from the start to solve problems co-operatively was
seen as essential to enable effective co-management to
occur (Seixas and Davy 2008; Stoll-Kleeman and O’Riordan
2002; Stolton et al. 1999).
Consultation results & analysis
Initial interviews found considerable confusion and miscon
ceptions about the meaning of and responsibilities of World
Heritage listing. Instead the World Heritage listing provoked internal power conflicts over expected benefits. The
need to resolve these conflicts was seen as critical. Most
stakeholders identified the lack of a strong coordination
as crippling the World Heritage programme’s management
implementation. It was also found that there was a general
lack of local leadership and reluctance to become involved
in World Heritage activities without payment. Further, the
Council of Chiefs was viewed by many Rennellese as ineffective or dysfunctional. Though the people of East Rennell
did not wish their current social systems to be undermined
– the Church culture and local landholder rights – these
systems were viewed by many as not being able to provide
adequate economical opportunities.
Though the concept of linking conservation with traditional ecological knowledge and practices is an accepted
co-management approach internationally (Devin and
Doberstein, 2004; Emerly, 2000), it proved of limited applicability to East Rennell. The consultation revealed little evidence of sustainable utilisation practices or customary conservation management, especially in relation to wild food
harvesting. Several Renellese talked about how abundant
their resources were in the past, which meant that they
did not have to worry about managing certain species for
their long-term survival. However, most Renellese believed
that this situation had drastically changed and that now
their natural resources were under threat. Increased pressure of the cash economy together with increased natural
disasters such as cyclones and rising water levels of Lake
Tegano, were mentioned as the main causes.
Many informants expressed their frustration at the absence
of tangible benefits for the local people as ‘compensation’
for ‘going with World Heritage’ and not pursuing logging
and mining as did the people of West Rennell. There was
also a fear that people from West Rennell would migrate to
East Rennell once their own lands were destroyed through
these practices, and place greater pressure on already fragile food resources. Lack of food security was identified as a
major issue facing local people, as was the need to develop
62
sustainable income generating opportunities. The community also identified the lack of government and NGO
financial and logistical support as a major project defect.
Despite the Solomon Island’s government recognising the
need for their involvement, there has been little action due
to a lack of capacity and jurisdiction over customary lands.
All of East Rennell is under customary land ownership.
From the interviews it was deduced that the community
may benefit from a livelihoods rather than an eco-tourism
officer as recommended by the Management Plan (Wein,
2007) to focus on securing access to reliable food sources
rather than livelihoods and conservation simultaneously
from the start (Berkes, 2007). Reliable access to food would
also decrease the need for over-harvesting of the 14 bird
species, some of them rare, which are regularly hunted as
one of the few remaining protein sources. The interviews
also revealed that no single institution in the Solomon
Islands can ensure effective protected area management.
At the time of this research, there was no legislative framework and/or national governance for protected areas in the
Solomon Islands (see update from McMahon this volume).
Given the limited capacity and authority of government,
NGOs can play a key support role in shared governance of
the property, particularly in the initial stages.
The proposed community
management model
Local people have knowledge about their resources but
this does not necessarily mean that systems of governance
should be traditional (Ostrom, 2005 in Agrawal, 2007).
This view was also supported by interviewed number of
Rennellese. Also ‘successful commons governance requires
that rules evolve’ (Dietz et al. 2003, p.1907). In view of
this, the needs and suggestions of relevant stakeholders
were considered together with international ‘best practice’
methodologies to develop a governance management
model for ERWHS, while building on existing local rules.
Only a limited number of studies of Pacific protected area
governance were available as models and none were from
the Solomon Islands (e.g. see Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann
2007; Agrawal and Redford, 2006, Overton and Scheyvens,
1999). Though the wider literature provided broad-scale
management strategies, such as the need for participatory
approaches (Seixas and Davy, 2008; IUCN 2008; Ribot,
2002 in Agrawal, 2007), there was relatively little literature
on ‘how to’ implement governance models effectively in
protected areas at the community level.
What could be concluded from the literature was that the
governance and management model or ERWHS must be
robust: support and promote conservation and livelihoods
and provide the foundation for long-term benefits to the
environment and the community. It also requires clear coordination between stakeholders, flexibility and transparency
and provides a single voice through which the community
could engage with governments, NGOs and the interna-
3
Livelihood & Conservation Activities & Outcomes
ERWHS Project Steering Committee
SDA Pastor
Council of Chiefs
SSEC Pastor
LTWHSA Committee
Elected annually by association members. The committee,
with input from advisors are responsible for pursuing
the vision & objectives of association in accordance with
the legal constitution
Land
Owners
Youth
Groups
Land
Users
Women’s
Association & Legal Constitution
A legal association open to all people of East Rennell & a legal constitution
accepted by association, Govt. & NGOs.
tional community. Long-term and multiple partners who
bring their relative strengths to the partnership was also
considered an essential element of community-based conservation (Berkes, 2007). Therefore a community, NGO and
government-recognised East Rennell association with an
elected committee and legally registered constitution was
trialled as the first step in the long journey of attempting
to link conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Key elements of the Lake Tegano World Heritage Site Association
(LTWHSA) include:
• community elected versus appointed representatives
• equal representation of all four villages
• t he inclusion of women, youth, land owners and
land users
• t wo advisory sub-committees made up of Council
of Chiefs and Church representatives
• a steering committee that includes non-voting
government representatives, NGO advisors and
elected trustees who oversee the running of the
association (see Fig. 2)
• S ix weekly committee meetings followed by
community feedback by committee members.
The ERWHS Community Engagement
Model
The potential advantages of this governance structure for
the community that traditional models alone could not
provide include:
• f acilitation of communication between community
and funding agencies, NGOs and government to
form foundations for long-term organisational
support
• d
evelopment of an agreed and robust constitution
to guide and refer to at times of conflict
• g
reater transparency and accountability in the
implementation of projects especially projects
which involve donor funding
• increase the opportunity for the people of East
Rennell to obtain direct project funding for World
Heritage projects.
Community support for this model was evident in 70 per
cent of the community voting for the new Committee.
Many people were eager to establish the Committee so
that with the assistance of the international advisors the
community could access monetary and non-monetary
63
3
Community and governance in the World Heritage property of East Rennell
incentives to support management of the World Heritage
site. This included local employment, small-business development and support in protecting and maintaining local
resources. Programs implemented by the advisors included
the establishment of a World Heritage office, casual
employment and training of local rangers and World Heritage educators. The advisors acquired and implemented
funding grants and started to form partnerships with
NGOs who could assist in the implementation of livelihood
and conservation projects such as; agricultural and small
business training and support and local ranger programme
development. At the same time scientific research begun
into the rapidly falling numbers of Telapia fish from Lake
Tegano, which had been the main protein source for the
East Rennellese.
Some less successful outcomes were also documented.
Many conservation and livelihood NGOs working in the
Solomon Islands lack the funding and the skills required
to commit long-term to projects. At the local level, within
the LTWHSA the self interest of some elected members
became apparent. Internal conflict escalated when a select
group were chosen to undertake training in Australia. The
advisors observed that this bred jealousy, resentment and
suspicion. The approach was also in direct opposition to
the ‘grass-roots’ community engagement strategy that
the advisors had been using which focussed on managing
community expectations, ensuring acceptance in the community and distributing funding more equitably.
Other issues that arose included being unable to equitably hire local counterparts for the advisors to train due to
internal rivalries and mistrust by funding agencies. Release
of funding from AusAid and the European Union requires a
high level of financial accountability. More than 18 months
was also required to adequately train and employ local,
untrained people to be able to effectively and transparently
perform the complex role of ‘coordinator’.
Conclusion
It is envisaged that if intensive external assistance to
ERWHS is to continue it will be required for at least the
next 10 years to ensure this participatory and local capacity building approach operates effectively and encourages
development and maintenance of external partnerships.
Long-term partnerships, funding and on-site professional
coordination will be essential to make the project viable.
Adequate time and coordinated support for expatriate and
local staff will be needed to continue to build on the strong
foundation of the association, by training the committee,
local trainee advisors (managers) and rangers in how to
manage a protected area. Having professional on-ground
64
staff will also be essential in linking community needs with
national and international agencies and their multiple conservation and livelihood objectives.
How successfully the East Rennell community can achieve
sustainable livelihoods while managing the values for
which their place has been inscribed for is debatable, particularly as there are very limited tourism and cash generating opportunities through management of the World Heritage property. The pressing issue of a lack of reliable food
source, particularly protein, makes conservation a lower
priority for the East Rennellese. In addition, unless the values of the property are considered threatened, it can be
difficult to garner support. In this situation, the ability of a
programme such as World Heritage to improve local livelihoods is questionable. Exacerbating this is the fact that the
property was initially judged as being able to be effectively
managed under traditional structures. In reality the increasing cash economy needs will require external support to
help effectively mange the property while simultaneously
support sustainable livelihoods.
It remains to be seen whether the proposed ERWHS
Engagement Model can be successful as a vehicle for linking conservation and livelihood objectives in East Rennell
and how it will evolve over time through both local community and outside influences (see McMahon this volume).
Such a model does however have potential to give ownership of projects such as this to local people and to gradually build in the direct and in-direct conservation benefits
that increased livelihood standards can bring. Accountability and transparency under the current Polynesian tribal
wantok obligations system will be difficult to achieve over
the long-term. The lack of government jurisdiction and
adequate NGO and funding agency support is also of real
concern. The sporadic support for the project since its
World Heritage listing together with the high expectations
of benefits by the local Rennellese people, means that even
with the highest level of support and the ‘best’ governance
and management structures in place, the project has a high
risk of failing.
Acknowledgement
Michael Heywood was the Volunteer Management Advisor and Kasia Gabrys the Volunteer Eco-Tourism Advisor
for East Rennell World Heritage property between March
2008 and September 2009. They were funded by Australian Volunteers International, an independent not-for-profit
development organisation and supported by Solomon
Islands based NGO Live & Learn Environmental Education.
They were the first advisors and Westerners to reside in
East Rennell under the World Heritage programme.
Kasia Gabrys and members of the community of East Rennell at
an Association Formation Meeting, Niupani Village, East Rennell,
4 October 2008. © Mike Heywood
3
IUCN (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected
Area Management Categories, A draft for WCPA,
for general discussion, January.
Marshall, G. (2005) Economics for Collaborative
Environmental Management Renegotiating the
Commons. Earthscan UK & USA.
Mulongoy, K.J., Chape, S.P. (eds.) (2004) Protected
Areas and Biodiversity: An Overview of Key Issues.
CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada and UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK. URL, Accessed 20 Aug.
2008: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/
pa-brochure-en.pdf
Overton, J. and Scheyvens, R. (eds.) (1999)
Strategies for Sustainable Development: Experiences from the Pacific, UNSW Press; Sydney.
References
Agrawal, A. (2007) Forests, governance and
sustainability: Common property theory and its
contributions, International Journal of the Commons. Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2007, pp.111-136.
Agrawal, A. and Redford, K. (2006) Poverty,
Development, and Biodiversity Conservation:
Shooting in the Dark? Working Paper No.26.
March 2006, Wildlife Conservation Society.
Berkes, F. (2007) Community-based conservation
in a globalized world, PNAS, Vol. 104, No.39,
pp.15188-15193.
Bertzky, M and Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2007) Multilevel discrepancies with sharing data on protected
areas: What we have and what we need for the
global village, Journal of Environmental
Management, pp.1-17.
De Haan, L. (2000) The question of development
and environment in geography in the era of
globalisation, GeoJournal, Vol.50, pp.359-367.
Devin, S. and Doberstein, B. (2004) Traditional
ecological knowledge in parks management:
a Canadian perspective. Environments, Vol. 32,
pp.47-69.
Dietz, T. Ostrom, E. and Stern, P. C. (2003) The
struggle to govern the commons, Science, Vol. 302,
No. 5652, pp.1907-1912.
Emerly, B. (2000) Integrating Indigenous Knowledge into Project Planning and Implementation
– General Guidelines. A joint publication by CIDA,
ILO, KIVU Nature and the World Bank.
Seixas, S. C. and Davy, B. (2008) Self-organisation
in integrated conservation and development initiatives, International Journal of the Commons, Vol 2,
No. 1, pp. 99-125.
Stoll-Kleeman, S. and O’Riordan, T. (2002)
From participation to partnership in biodiversity
protection: experience from Germany and South
Africa, Society and Natural Resources, Vol 15,
pp.161-177.
Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Gujja, B., (eds), (1999)
Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for
Planning and Management for Protected Areas,
World Wide Fund for Nature, International Union
for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
Accessed 19 Feb. 2009: http://books.google.com/
books?hl=en&lr=&id=iNSoOeQuG1UC&oi=fnd&p
g=PR8&dq=Partnerships+for+Protection+&ots=PrT
hfMXyCT&sig=iKpfNaiw4eFXcdbjUmqF0FoM-9A
Tabbasum, S. A. and Dingwall, P. (2005) Report
on the Mission to East Rennell World Heritage
Property and Marovo Lagoon, Solomon Islands.
Report for UNESCO and IUCN.
UNESCO (1998) World Heritage Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage, Report, World Heritage
Committee Twenty-Second Session, Kyoto, Japan:
http://whc.unesco.org/pg_friendly_email.cfm?id_
decision=2741&cid=305&
Wein, L. (2007) East Rennell World Heritage Site
Management Plan, East Rennell World Heritage
Trust Board, Solomon Islands.
Foimua, J. (2006) Renbel [Rennell-Bellona]
Province, Ch. 7 in Hem nao, Solomon Islands, tis
taem Community Sector Program. Report for the
CSPC Community Snapshot, Volume 1, Provincial
Profiles, pp.131-149.
65
3
Australian Capacity Building Support
for East Rennell World Heritage Area
2007-2013
International Heritage Section, Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government
Following completion of the East Rennell World
Heritage Site Management Plan, 2007, developed by
consultant Laurie Wein and the communities of
East Rennell ‘through participatory processes in late
November and December 2006’ the Solomon Island’s
Government requested support from the Australian
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) to address
the recommendations outlined in the management
plan. DSEWPaC received funding from AusAID’s Pacific
Governance Support Program (PGSP) to implement
the project ‘Strengthening Management Capacity
in the East Rennell World Heritage Area’ which was
designed around the Plan’s recommendations and
delivered via partnerships with Queensland’s Wet
Tropics Management Authority and Solomon Islands
based NGOs WWF and Live and Learn Environmental Education, and through two Australian volunteers
(Australian Volunteers International) based at East
Rennell (see Gabrys this volume).
Outcomes of the PGSP project included establishment of a
new community association and committee for management of the property (Lake Tegano World Heritage Site
Association), enhanced awareness and skills to support
community-based governance and decision making, and
World Heritage and natural resource management and
monitoring. DSEWPaC and project partners learnt some
clear lessons during the implementation of PGSP Activity. Lessons included managing community expectations
regarding benefits from World Heritage listing, encouraging a more realistic understanding of the opportunities
World Heritage listing can bring, managing community
expectations regarding access to training opportunities,
encouraging participation without payment, maintaining
regular contact with the communities, distributing information widely in the communities, and empowering the
communities with ownership of their own stories.
The PGSP project was completed in 2009, however fortunately for continuity there was no break in support for East
Rennell. Live and Learn Environmental Education was able
to continue to assist the East Rennell community, including providing support to the Lake Tegano World Heritage
66
Site Association, through further funding obtained from
the European Union to continue activities until 2011. During this time, in order to maintain the continuation of support to East Rennell and the Solomon Islands Government,
DSEWPaC sought and was successful in obtaining funding
under AusAID’s PGSP successor the Pacific Public Sector
Linkages Program (PPSLP) for the project: Strengthening
World Heritage & Protected Area Governance: Solomon
Islands & PNG from 2011-2013.
DSEWPaC designed the new PPSLP project in consultation
with the Solomon Islands Government, Rennell Bellona
Provincial Government, the Lake Tegano World Heritage
Site Association and project partners, heeding the lessons
learnt from the PGSP project. The PPSLP project aims to
strengthen the capacity, performance and effectiveness
of national and provincial governments in the Solomon
Islands and PNG for World Heritage and protected area
governance and natural resource management, and to
assist customary landowner communities to become strong
and resilient via effective stewardship of their land and the
natural resources on which they rely.
To support sustainable management of East Rennell and
more generally assist the Solomon Islands in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, the PPSLP project
is assisting the development and/ or implementation of:
• W
orld Heritage Convention (eg reporting to World
Heritage Committee)
• national and provincial protected area legislation
• c ustomary landowner enforcement of protected
area regulations
• a n East Rennell management agreement between
community & government
• c ommunity heritage based development (livelihoods activities) and
• p
artnerships and information exchange between
Pacific Island countries.
3
Village on the edge of Lake Tegano East Rennell World Heritage site. © Kate McMahon
Achievements to date include:
• D
SEWPaC in partnership with the Wet Tropics Management Authority delivered a training
workshop In June 2011 to assist Pacific Island
countries in the completion of Periodic Reporting
for UNESCO. Four Pacific Island Countries (PNG,
Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Kiribati) attended
the training and submitted their completed reports
to the World Heritage Centre on time.
• A
State of Conservation Report for East Rennell
was submitted to the World Heritage Centre in
February 2012, the first the Solomon Islands has
submitted a State of Conservation Report since
inscription.
• The Solomon Islands National Commission for
UNESCO appointed new World Heritage Focal
Points in the Ministry of Environment, Climate
Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology
and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
• L ive and Learn Environmental Education has been
engaged to deliver community heritage based
development activities including supporting the
Lake Tegano World Heritage Site Association management committee, and implementing livelihoods
and heritage promotion activities.
• T he Lake Tegano World Heritage Site Association
elected new management committee in October
2011.
• T wo East Rennell community members and an
official from the Ministry of Cultural and Tourism
were amongst a group of Pacific Islanders from Vanuatu, PNG and the Solomon Islands supported by the
PPSLP project and the Kokoda Initiative that attended
the Pacific Asia Indigenous Tourism Conference in
Darwin, March 2012 and ‘look and learn’ visits to
Kakadu and the Tiwi Islands, where they experienced
community owned indigenous tourism products.
• T he Solomon Islands has enacted the Protected
Areas Act 2010, which includes provisions for
the protection of World Heritage. The Ministry of
Environment is currently seeking gazettal of East
Rennell under the Act.
67
3
Community as the First C: Conservation
and Development through Tourism at
Chief Roi Mata’s Domain, Vanuatu
Meredith Wilson, Stepwise Heritage & Tourism Pty Ltd. Australia
Chris Ballard, Australian National University
Richard Matanik, Vanuatu World Heritage Advisory Group / Lelema World Heritage Committee
Topie Warry, Lelema World Heritage Committee, Vanuatu
The importance attached throughout the Pacific
region to Indigenous ownership, stewardship and
management of cultural heritage is reflected in New
Zealand’s 2007 “Proposal for a ‘Fifth C’ to be added
to the Strategic Objectives”, which insisted on the
critical role of community in heritage protection
(World Heritage Committee, 2007). The absence of
a role for community in the 2002 Budapest Declaration on World Heritage (World Heritage Committee
2002), which proposed the first four “Cs” (Credibility,
Conservation, Capacity-building [‘in States Parties’]
and Communication), could not be sustained either
in countries with a vibrant Indigenous voice, such
as New Zealand, or in those countries where local
communities retain a significant degree of political
autonomy, such as Vanuatu and other independent
Melanesian nations (Ballard and Wilson, 2012).
Where a local community is the primary repository of the
knowledge that furnishes a site with much of its meaning
and significance, that community is thoroughly implicated
in the protection of its own heritage. As the “Proposal
for a ‘Fifth C’” submitted, ‘Heritage protection without
community involvement and commitment is an invitation
to failure’, and the viability of the other four “Cs” hinges
upon the commitment to its cultural heritage of the local
community: ‘Conservation, capacity building, credibility
and communication are all intrinsically linked to the idea of
community’ (World Heritage Committee, 2007:2).
This central role for community is strongly evident at the
World Heritage site of Chief Roi Mata’s Domain, a continuing and associative cultural landscape in the Republic of
Vanuatu, inscribed under criteria (iii), (v) and (vi), where the
local Lelema community has taken the lead in the nomination process and in post-inscription management of the
site (Wilson, Ballard and Kalotiti, 2011). In 2011, three
68
years after inscription and with assistance from the Australian Pacific Public Sector Linkages Program, the State party
established an inter-departmental World Heritage Advisory Group, which acts largely in support of community
agencies and initiatives. From the inception of the Chief
Roi Mata’s Domain project, the community has placed particular emphasis on the importance of a locally-owned and
-managed cultural heritage tourism operation. Our understanding and appreciation of the role of this tourism operation as a business and as a potential force for conservation
has evolved over time, to the point where we now contend
- given the prevailing social, political and economic conditions at Chief Roi Mata’s Domain – that tourism is a necessary and integral element in the long-term and sustainable
maintenance of the site’s Outstanding Universal Value.
The literature is replete with cautions about the potential
for negative impacts of tourism on cultural heritage (Russo
2002, Shackley 2006). Not unlike the old joke about librarians welcoming members of the public except when they
use books, cultural heritage tourism commonly features
as a necessary evil, to be managed ‘sustainably’, at best.
The emphasis is unidirectional, with tourism impinging or
imposing upon a static and finite resource (Hall 2009: 118);
managers at World Heritage sites are cautioned to promote
forms of tourism that ‘tread lightly’ (Bandarin 2002), to
minimise the tourist footprint on fragile and internationally
significant heritage sites and thus ensure their longevity.
Cultural commodification and compromised authenticity are frequently cited as direct consequences of poorly
managed tourism. Concerns have also been raised about
the potential for World Heritage and tourism to override or
efface Indigenous and local community rights and interests
(e.g. Johnston 2006: p.122), but this perspective assumes
the domination of tourism by corporate industry or the
state, and largely denies the agency and aspirations of local
and Indigenous communities.
3
Rock art at Fels Cave, Chief Roi Mata’s Domain. © Photograph by Kirk Huffman, May 1978, courtesy of Vanuatu Cultural Centre
Writing against the tendency of this ‘tradition of melancholia’
to treat the effects of tourism on indigenous communities as
inevitably inimical to culture and tradition, Tate LeFevre has
shown how indigenous managers of cultural heritage on the
New Caledonian island of Lifou ‘use tourism performance
as a way to proclaim their Kanak culture globally in order
to keep it strong locally’ (2007, p. 89). Lifou communities
achieve this goal by controlling the representation of their
own culture and the nature and extent of their engagement
with mass tourism. The success of this approach to tourism
was powerfully evident recently, when one of the authors
watched the Wetr Dance Troupe performing first for cruise
ship tourists visiting Lifou, before continuing to perform
late into the afternoon for themselves and the remaining
local stall-holders, long after the last of the tourists had
departed for their ship. While we must remain sensitive to
the challenges posed by tourism, and by the requirements
of global business standards and expectations, we need also
to be alert to the opportunities for both conservation and
development presented to local or Indigenous communities
through their engagement with tourism.
location associated with the life and death of the sixteenthcentury paramount chief, Roi Mata: his residence at Mangaas, on Efate; the site of his death at Fels Cave, on Lelepa;
and the gravesite at which he was buried with as many as
300 live subjects, on Artok. Since that time, no one has
lived on Artok, and no one has dared to lay claim to the
title of Roi Mata.
Community at Chief Roi Mata’s Domain
Articulating these two systems of value is the metaphor,
increasingly in use amongst those involved in the Chief
Roi Mata’s Domain project, of the stool with three legs:
land (or graon in Bislama, the lingua franca of Vanuatu);
community (pipol); and customary stories (storian). All
three components contribute to the value of this cultural
landscape, and the continued vitality of each component
is essential in sustaining that value. Conservation of the
For a World Heritage site, Chief Roi Mata’s Domain is physically unimposing. A narrow stretch of coastline along the
north-western shores of Vanuatu’s capital island of Efate
is linked to the large inhabited island of Lelepa and the
smaller and uninhabited nearshore island of Artok by a
triangle of intervening sea. Each of the islands features a
Decision 32COM 8B.27 on Chief Roi Mata’s Domain refers
to ‘the continuing association of the landscape with the
oral traditions of Roi Mata, continuity of chiefly systems of
authority and customary respect for the tangible remains
of his life evident in the continuing tapu prohibitions on
these places’ (World Heritage Committee, 2008). Each of
the elements of this statement alludes to the ongoing role
of the Lelema community in the definition, interpretation
and further development of the significance of the site.
For the community, the ‘value’ of the landscape is more
cogently expressed through the local concept of nafsan
natoon, ‘the talk that is’, and the injunction to live one’s
life walking ‘in the footsteps of Roi [Mata]’ (nalfan Roi).
69
3
Community as the First C: Conservation and Development through Tourism at
material landscape and of significant locales, development of the community (including its health, food and
water supply, education and economic opportunity), and
the continued transmission of stories and other forms of
customary knowledge and practice are challenges of equal
importance for the future of Chief Roi Mata’s Domain.
Stewardship for Chief Roi Mata’s Domain project has
been provided at a national level by the Vanuatu National
Museum and Cultural Centre, but limits to the resources
available for a project of this scale and duration, as well
as the fundamental autonomy of local communities in
Vanuatu, have made community participation a virtue
born of necessity. Douglas Kalotiti was the Cultural Centre’s fieldworker for northwest Efate, a resident of Lelepa,
and a member of the family that claims ownership of the
three core locations of Mangaas, Fels Cave and Artok. He
assumed an early leadership role in the nomination process,
and became Chair of the local World Heritage and Tourism
Committee, the first community committee charged with
overseeing the management of World Heritage matters,
including tourism. Until his untimely loss in April 2011,
Douglas epitomised the commitment of the community
to the management of its own cultural heritage, ensuring
that the nomination truly reflected local values, and representing the community and the Republic of Vanuatu at the
32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in Quebec,
at which Chief Roi Mata’s Domain was inscribed on the
World Heritage List. He was also the first member of the
project to grasp the intrinsic relationship between community development and heritage conservation, conducting
his own census of the community and audit of land holdings in order to demonstrate, in weekly community talks,
the importance of long-term land-use planning. Community representatives remain at the heart of management of
the World Heritage site, dominating the membership of
the national-level Vanuatu World Heritage Advisory Group,
co-ordinating site management and conservation, craft
production and water security, and running a communityowned cultural heritage venture, Roi Mata Cultural Tours,
and a programme of bungalow development.
Tourism featured early in discussions with the Lelema chiefs
and community, who were keen to see financial benefit
accrue from their commitment to the World Heritage project. During 2004 and 2005, as the project was being initiated, three different international reality television shows
paid handsomely to use the landscape, story and community of Chief Roi Mata’s Domain as a backdrop, introducing
a particular model of cultural heritage as a resource. Drawn
by this international profile, real estate developers involved
in the boom in long-term leasing of customary land across
Vanuatu began to show increased interest in the Chief Roi
Mata’s Domain area (Slatter 2006). Preliminary payments,
often illegal, were made to a large number of customary
landowners in the Lelema community as a first step in
acquiring 75-year leases, which are commonly subjected
to sub-division for residential development for expatriate
investors (Trau et al n.d.).
70
Roi Mata Cultural Tours
The short-term ‘windfall’ incomes associated with the
brief sojourns of the reality television shows established a
largely unrealistic standard for cultural heritage tourism at
Chief Roi Mata’s Domain. The model of a small-scale, slowgrowth tourism venture generating limited income for a
restricted portion of the community, preferred by the Cultural Centre and its volunteers, was never going to match
expectations, and is still frequently the focus of frustration
expressed about the slow pace of local development.
During 2005-06, an Australian volunteer, Carly Greig, developed the first tourism plan for Chief Roi Mata’s Domain
through a series of community workshops (Greig 2006).
The principal outcome of the workshops was an action
plan for establishing the Roi Mata Cultural Tour, premised
on vision statements from members of the community:
‘[The tourism project] is a dream that each person gathered here shares, just as we share our Church, our school
and much more. It encourages us to have more respect for
our own cultural strengths’. The ideals expressed in these
statements are of a tourism operation that serves to unite
the community, bring benefit to all, improve health and
education services, protect the region’s natural and cultural
heritage, and provide for future generations. It is from this
baseline that the relative success of the Roi Mata Cultural
Tours venture is assessed locally.
Roi Mata Cultural Tours is entirely owned, managed and
staffed by members of the Lelema community, operating
under the umbrella of the Lelema World Heritage Committee.
The tours depart from the Roi Mata exhibition at the Vanuatu Cultural Centre, where photographs and texts describe
the basic story of the life and death of the last holder of the
Roi Mata title, and some of the grave goods from the Artok
burial are on display. A re-enactment of Roi Mata’s peacemaking ceremony is staged on the beach at Mangaas, before
visitors are guided through his residential precinct; they then
travel by small boat to Lelepa Island, where they are shown
Fels Cave and its remarkable gallery of rock art; and finally
they cross the short sea passage to the forbidden or tapu
island of Artok, to visit the grave site, marked by two large
headstones. As the story unfolds, and we learn the details
of his life and deeds, the nature of his death, and the astonishing drama of his burial, the landscape becomes animated
and suffused with an awareness of the extraordinary power
of this singularly charismatic chief, reaching across four centuries to guide the manner in which members of the Lelema
community conduct their lives today.
Interpretation of the site remains a significant challenge for
the tour. The Lelema community has had little practice at
articulating or explaining those values to an outside audience of widely varying familiarity with Pacific conditions
and cultures. While Fels Cave is physically impressive, and
its rock art visually striking, the residential site of Mangaas and the grave site on Artok require interpretation for
visitors to begin to appreciate their significance and their
possible form 400 years ago, when Mangaas was the site
Douglas Kalotiti training community tour guides at the grave of
Roi Mata, Artok Island, 2009. © Alison Fleming
3
son with most other income-generating initiatives in the
community. A programme of bungalow development in
conjunction with the tour has been designed explicitly by a
local committee to ensure that those benefits continue to
flow as broadly as possible within the community.
Beyond its narrower business function, the tour has
expanded upon existing modes of cultural transmission and
refocused attention on nalfan Roi, on walking in the footsteps of Roi Mata, within the community. Particular attention has been paid by community leaders to the potential
of World Heritage and the tour venture to encourage an
understanding and appreciation of local tradition amongst
younger generations, and special tours have been arranged
for the community’s school-age children. The site and the
tour have also captured the interest of the national Department of Tourism, whose Director, George Borugu, has
assumed the position of Chair of the Vanuatu World Heritage Advisory Group and announced plans for an annual
national Roi Mata Festival.
of massive region-wide peace ceremonies, and Artok the
scene of a mass burial without parallel in the Pacific. Disappointment is an occasional response from those tourists
insufficiently prepared with interpretation. Maintenance of
the quality of the tour, and further elaboration of the interpretive programme, including an illustrated guide book
and a revitalised dramatisation, is essential for the tour to
realise its full potential.
Demand for the tour has fluctuated with seasonal flows,
changes in the status of Vanuatu within the global tourism market, and challenges inherent in the management
and marketing of the tour (Trau, 2012). Irregular flows in
business see many of the tour’s trained guides seek more
dependable employment elsewhere. The slow pace of
growth of the tour as a business, while a boon for the
development of interpretation and the training of community participants, has been an enduring source of frustration for many, and especially for the chiefs, who are under
relentless pressure to deliver economic opportunities to the
community. Growth in the tour is unlikely to result from
an increase in the number of tourists per group, which is
capped in the Cultural Tourism Strategy at 10 per tour, but
there is certainly room for increase in the frequency of tours
and for improvement in quality (and thus some increase in
the scale of fees charged).
Nevertheless, approximately one-third of all adults of the
Lelema community have been involved in the tour, as managers, trained guides, dancers, cooks, craft-makers and
-sellers, boat operators and drivers. Tour-related salaries and
profits may disappoint, but they have been relatively widely
distributed across the community – certainly by compari-
Amongst the ancillary benefits of the tour are the stimulation of customary craft production, such as the weaving of
baskets based on nineteenth-century Lelepa artefacts held
in museum collections and the carving of two metre-high
standing slit gongs, which are being made again for the
first time in over a century and used in tour performances.
Traditions, such as the carving and use of traditional canoes,
and the rhythms of slit-gong performance and choreography of dancing, are being revived and re-interpreted; the
troupe of dancers on which the tour draws for its dramatization has developed a reputation of its own, performing
in 2010 at the Dreaming Festival in Australia.
Most importantly, perhaps, World Heritage tourism at
Chief Roi Mata’s Domain has demonstrated the potential
of at least one financially viable alternative form of land
use to land-leasing, albeit of a different scale and duration.
One of the authors returned from a recent international
conference on Indigenous tourism in Perth, convinced that
land leases offer the single greatest threat to the integrity
of the community and to the future of its cultural identity.
Conclusions
Is cultural heritage tourism necessarily inimical to the Five
Cs? In the case of Chief Roi Mata’s Domain – and presumably many other sites either in developing countries or
under indigenous management and stewardship – tourism
is neither an inevitable threat to conservation nor a challenge to some commonly assumed “pristine” condition. To
the contrary, it is potentially a vital component of community-led conservation and an important opportunity for the
enhancement of cultural transmission and revival.
Community-owned and -managed cultural heritage tourism at the World Heritage site of Chief Roi Mata’s Domain
now forms an integral part of the overall management and
conservation of the site and its values. Regarded as essen-
71
3
Community as the First C: Conservation and Development through Tourism at
tial initially by the community in exchange for reserving
portions of its land holdings for World Heritage rather than
other land-use options, tourism at Chief Roi Mata’s Domain
is both more and less than a business. The Roi Mata Cultural Tours enterprise may always be less financially successful than it might otherwise become in the hands of
others and, like all projects involving income generation, it
will always be implicated in local and national politics, but
its functions and influence extend far beyond the simple
logic of income generation. Wisely managed, the tour is
a force for conservation and the enhancement of cultural
heritage values, providing a structured process through
which the community can manage and ensure the transmission of those values. Tourism will continue to play a significant role in the landscape of Chief Roi Mata’s Domain
because the local community constitutes an integral part of
the landscape; because the community controls and is the
key to the unfolding interpretation of the landscape; and
because the community’s self-development requires some
contribution or return from its investment in interpreting its
landscape for the global community.
References
Ballard, Chris and Meredith Wilson 2012.
‘Unseen monuments: managing Melanesian
cultural landscapes.’ In Ken Taylor and Jane
Lennon (eds) Managing Cultural Landscapes.
New York: Routledge, pp. 130-153.
Bandarin, Francesco 2002. ‘Foreword.’ In Arthur
Pedersen, Managing Tourism at World Heritage
Sites: a practical manual for World Heritage site
managers. World Heritage Manuals 1. Paris:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, p.3.
Greig, Carly 2006. Cultural Tourism Strategy
for Chief Roi Mata’s Domain (Northwest Efate,
Vanuatu). Report for the World Heritage and
Tourism Committee (WHTC) and the Lelepa
Region Community.
Hall, C. Michael 2009. ‘Heritage tourism in the
Pacific: modernity, myth and identity.’ In Dallen
J. Timothy and Gyan P. Nyaupane (eds) Cultural
Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World:
a regional perspective. New York: Routledge,
pp. 109-126.
above & right: Chief Roi Mata’s Domain Vanuatu. © Vanuatu National Cultural Council
72
LeFevre, Tate 2007. ‘Tourism and indigenous
curation of culture in Lifou, New Caledonia.’
In Peter Stanley (ed.) The Future of Indigenous
Museums: perspectives from the Southwest
Pacific. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 78-90.
Russo, Antonio Paolo 2002. ‘The “vicious circle”
of tourism development in heritage cities.’ Annals
of Tourism Research 29(1): pp. 165-182.
Shackley, Myra 2006. ‘Visitor management at
World Heritage sites.’ In Anna Leask and Alan Fyall
(eds) Managing World Heritage Sites. Kidlington,
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 83-93.
Slatter, Claire 2006. The Con/Dominion of
Vanuatu? Paying the Price of Investment and Land
Liberalisation: a case study of Vanuatu’s tourism
industry. Auckland: Oxfam New Zealand.
Trau, Adam 2012. ‘Beyond pro-poor tourism: (re)
interpreting tourism-based approaches to poverty
alleviation in Vanuatu.’ Tourism Planning and Development, DOI:10.1080/21568316.2011.630750.
Trau, Adam, Chris Ballard and Meredith Wilson
n.d. ‘Bafa Zon: localising World Heritage at Chief
Roi Mata’s Domain, Vanuatu.’ Unpublished paper.
3
Wilson, Meredith, Chris Ballard and Douglas
Kalotiti 2011. ‘Chief Roi Mata’s Domain:
challenges for a World Heritage property in
Vanuatu.’ Historic Environment 23(2): pp. 5-11.
World Heritage Committee 2002. Budapest
Declaration on World Heritage, Decision 26COM
9, World Heritage Committee, UNESCO. Last
accessed 12 December 2011, from http://whc.
unesco.org/en/decisions/1217/
World Heritage Committee 2007. ‘Proposal for a
“Fifth C” to be added to the Strategic Objectives.’
Draft Decision WHC-07/31.COM/13B, World
Heritage Committee, UNESCO. Last accessed 12
December 2011, from http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/2007/whc07-31com-13be.pdf
World Heritage Committee 2008. ‘Examination
of nomination of natural, mixed and cultural
properties to the World Heritage List - Chief Roi
Mata’s Domain (VANUATU).’ Decision 32COM
8B.27, World Heritage Committee, UNESCO. Last
accessed 17 May 2012, from http://whc.unesco.
org/en/decisions/1488
Chief Roi Mata’s Domain, Vanuatu. © Vanuatu National Cultural Council
73
3
The Ancient Royal Tombs of Lapaha:
Community and World Heritage
Geoffrey Clark and Christian Reepmeyer, Archaeology and Natural History,
College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, Australia
Nivaleti Melekiola, Lapaha Council Inc., Lapaha, Tongatapu, Kingdom of Tonga
Lapaha is a village community of around 2200 people
in the Hahake (eastern) district of Tongatapu in the
Kingdom of Tonga. It is the location of an ancient
royal dynasty headed by the holder of the paramount Tu’i Tonga title, which held political authority
over the dispersed islands of the Tonga Group during
the 2nd millennium AD and influenced other parts of
the Pacific such as Samoa, east Fiji and Wallis/’Uvea
Island. The royal tombs of the Tu’i Tonga were
included on Tonga’s Tentative List in 2007, and this
paper outlines community involvement in the cultural heritage of Lapaha including recent progress
on the nomination of the ancient burial structures to
the World Heritage List. Community management of
Lapaha’s heritage sites is central to their preservation
with continuing use of the ancient tombs for burial
of senior title holders involving ceremony and ritual
dating to the Tu’i Tonga chiefdom. The traditional
burial practices demonstrate the continuing cultural
significance of the royal tombs to Tongan society,
which is strongly hierarchical and consists of kings,
chiefs and commoners. The tombs are also emblematic of the ancient Tongan kingdom that was the only
Pacific society to extend significantly to other archipelagos and islands.
Chiefly precinct of the Tu’i Tonga
Over centuries the landscape of Lapaha was densely built up
through the construction of the stone-lined tombs (langi)
of the paramount chiefs, an administrative area located
on reclaimed land on the edge of the lagoon, occupation
areas used by groups from other Pacific Islands, along with
prehistoric roads, canoe docks, ditches and chiefly bathing
wells. The number, scale and condition of ancient sites represents a daunting cultural heritage challenge for a small
and dispersed island nation.
The centerpiece of the Tu’i Tonga ‘capital’ were the royal
tombs that signaled the prestige of individual chiefs, with
the tombs collectively manifesting the power and authority
of the ruling lineage that held control of Tonga from AD
1200 until AD 1865. The tombs were built of beach rock
slabs quarried from coastal locations throughout Tonga,
74
and are among the most spectacular prehistoric constructions in the Pacific with individual stone blocks weighing
up to 50 tons (Clark et al. 2008).
The stone-walled tombs are part of the contemporary cultural landscape as the tombs are used today by the senior
title holders of Lapaha as they have been for centuries.
The tomb area was also the scene of the annual First Fruits
(inasi) ceremony where tribute from throughout the Tonga
archipelago and neighboring Pacific Islands was brought
to Lapaha. The close connection at Lapaha between the
tangible heritage and the intangible culture is common
in many parts of the Pacific, but is particularly strong at
Lapaha where the scale and density of monuments in the
chiefly precinct combines with hereditary roles relating to
the Tu’i Tonga era that continue to structure existing community organization and behavior (Figure 1).
Community organisation
In 2007, the Lapaha community established the Lapaha
Council Inc., which was the first representative village
council in Tonga to combine democratic selection of council members with elements of traditional governance. The
move toward a town council arrangement began in the
1980s under the traditional owner, and gathered pace in
2006 with funding to support the new governance structure from the Commonwealth Secretariat. The adoption of
a Council structure was made to engage directly with policy makers and donors to improve community conditions
and was not associated with the potential WH nomination
of the site. Nonetheless, the Lapaha Council Inc’s. mission
statement highlights the importance of cultural heritage to
community well being:
The people of Lapaha, the ancient capital of Tonga, shall
preserve and enhance its pride and identity of its royal and
cultural heritage through improving its physical, spiritual,
social and cultural environment. Lapaha Council Inc. community presentation 2009.
The Lapaha Council committee comprises 33 members:
three members from each of the six land blocks, each village
committee and subcommittee contributing one member,
3
Map of Lapaha showing the main Tu’i Tonga sites. Royal tombs (‘J’ structures), area of reclaimed land, ditches, canoe wharf and harbour
(partially infilled).
75
3
The Ancient Royal Tombs of Lapaha: Community and World Heritage
the traditional land owner (Honourable Kalaniuvalu-Fotofili), Patron (Princess Mele Siu’ilikutapu Kalaniuvalu-Fotofili)
and the Town Officer (Mr Nivaleti Melekiola).
Physical sites of the Tu’i Tonga era are managed by the
Council Standing committees dealing with Development
and Environment (Lands subcommittee) and Information
and Research (History subcommittee). Within Lapaha the
division of land is considered by the Lands subcommittee
and if cultural sites are known, the land owner is asked
to preserve these prior to land registration. As of 2011,
all land owners had agreed to look after (i.e. not destroy
or damage) cultural sites on their property. A high level of
voluntary action regarding the preservation of cultural sites
is consistent with the results of a 2009 Lapaha Council survey which revealed that 90 per cent of respondents highly
valued Lapaha’s historical sites.
Community management of the monuments and prehistoric structures of Lapaha is important as there are limited
resources for implementation of the two national laws currently regarding the management of Tonga’s tangible cultural
heritage. The Parks and Reserves Act 1976 is administered
by the Ministry of Lands, Survey, Natural Resources and Environment (MLSNRE), which has responsibility for cultural sites
in all ‘parks’ and ‘reserves’. The majority of royal tombs are
in the hereditary estate of the traditional land owner (The
Act of the Constitution of Tonga 1875) and are not explicitly the responsibility of the MLSNRE. The second law is The
Preservation of Objects of Archaeological Interest Act 1969,
which is administered by the Tonga Traditions Committee
(TTC). The TTC has made significant contributions to the collection of traditional history and documentation of Tonga’s
intangible culture (Wood-Ellem, 2001:272), but the Act does
not provide the direct means of preserving or managing
archaeological sites (Mahina 2003). The implementation of
an effective heritage site management programme is made
difficult in Tonga, as is the case in many parts of the Pacific,
by the limited human and financial resources (Mahina 2003;
Smith and Jones, 2007), particularly of large and complex
monumental sites like those in Lapaha.
World Heritage at Lapaha
Tonga became a signatory to the World Heritage Convention (1972) in 2004. Despite Tonga’s limited cultural heritage resources the promotion of the World Heritage Convention and placement in 2007 of Lapaha’s royal tombs on
the Tentative List has been important in creating a focus
for heritage activity at Lapaha. The Lapaha Council Inc.
and the Tongan government have engaged with foreign
researchers and heritage experts to better understand the
World Heritage concept, and to think about how sites of
the Tu’i Tonga chiefdom can be managed and preserved
by, and for, the community and Tonga.
Given the relative lack of capacity the preferred route to
advance a WH site nomination has been to assemble an
informal network composed of local leaders, academics
76
and government officials overseen by the Lapaha Council
Inc. This allows for local management of the sites and for
knowledge and information about World Heritage to circulate appropriately through community structures.
Significant actions to date include an MOU (2010) between
the Lapaha Council Inc., Tonga Traditions Committee and
The Australian National University to work together on
the WH cultural sites dossier, rezoning of residential land
around several tombs to preserve several sites and enlarge
buffer zones, the relocation of the Catholic Cemetery to
reduce damage to prehistoric tombs caused by a high density of modern burials, and the restriction of new interments in ancient tombs to appropriate titleholders to maintain traditional burial practices.
Local community involvement in the nomination process is
also exemplified by an oral history project. As land blocks
are generally owned in perpetuity by a particular family
much historical information about the cultural landscape
has been retained by Lapaha residents, but it is dispersed
through the community and is often specific to a single
location or land block. In 2011, the Lapaha community
began a project to record the oral histories of Lapaha
with financial support from the Australian Government.
The information will be held by the community and will
provide material to support the connection between the
physical remains of the Tu’i Tonga chiefdom and the contemporary community in the WH nomination. A pressing
issue at Lapaha is an urgent need to restore several of the
largest tombs that have deteriorated significantly over centuries from wall damage caused by erosion and vegetation
growth with a funding proposal to restore the tombs submitted by the MOU participants in 2011.
Conclusion
The monuments at Lapaha speak to a time when the local
inhabitants were preeminent in Tonga and the region, and
the Lapaha community is proud of its unbroken connection with the Tu’i Tonga chiefdom. The opportunity to promote and preserve the tangible cultural heritage of Lapaha
through WH nomination coincided, fortuitously, with the
traditional leaders and Lapaha Council Inc’s. goal of using
cultural heritage to strengthen community identity and
an international research project on the physical remains
of the Tu’i Tonga chiefdom. Progress with the nomination has been made in many areas with issues of cultural
heritage actively managed by the Lapaha Council Inc.
Greater community involvement with WH either through
attending ICOMOS/IUCN/UNESCO events or participating
in local and international heritage workshops/meetings
would actively support site management and lead to a
deeper understanding of the World Heritage Convention
(i.e. Smith 2011). Increased heritage support for communities involved in nominating sites would greatly benefit the
region’s cultural properties and the preservation of future
sites on the World Heritage List by increasing the local heritage expertise in Pacific Island nations.
3
Preparation by the undertaker clan for the burial of the late Kalaniuvalu in April 2010 in the tomb Paepae’o’telea, reputed to have been
built by the 29th Tu’i Tonga Uluakimata (Telea). © Geoff Clarke
References
Clark, G., D. Burley, and T. Murray 2008.
Monumentality in the Development of
the Tongan Maritime Chiefdom. Antiquity
82(318): pp. 994-1004.
Kaeppler, A.L. 1991. Me’etu’upaki and Tapaki,
Paddle Dances of Tonga and Futuna, West
Polynesia. Studia Musicologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 33: pp. 347-345.
Mahina, K.U. 2003. Koloa Tukufakaholo:
The Management of Tonga’s Cultural
Heritage. Unpublished MA thesis, Victoria
University, Wellington.
Smith, A. 2011. East Rennell World Heritage
Site: Misunderstandings, Inconsistencies and
Opportunities in the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention in the Pacific
Islands. International Journal of Heritage
Studies 17(6): pp. 592-607
UNESCO. 1972. The World Heritage
Convention. Paris.
UNESCO (Asia). 2009. Hoi An Protocols
for Best Conservation Practice in Asia:
Professional Guidelines for Assuring an
Preserving the Authenticity of Heritage Sites
in the Context of the Cultures of Asia.
Adopted by the Asia-Oceania Region at the
ICOMOS General Assembly in Xi’an, China
in 2005, UNESCO Bangkok, Bangkok.
Wood-Ellem, E. 2001. Queen Salote.
The Story of an Era 1900-1965. Auckland
University Press, Auckland.
Smith, A. and Jones, K. 2007. Cultural
Landscapes of the Pacific Islands: ICOMOS
Thematic Study. International Secretariat
of ICOMOS, Paris <http://whc.unesco.org/
uploads/news/documents/news-437-1.pdf>.
77
3
Community Participatory Approach
to Heritage Conservation in Samoa
Elisaia Talouli and Tuiolo Schuster, Samoa National Heritage Coordinating Committee,
Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment
Samoa became a state party to the World Heritage
Convention (the Convention) when it ratified the
Convention in 2001. The Convention was seen as
an important tool for the protection of cultural and
natural heritage of ‘outstanding universal value’
and most importantly in facilitating international
cooperation and collective assistance to assist at the
national level.
The Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment in partnership with other government ministries and organisations namely the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture,
NGOs, National University Samoa, Samoa Tourism Authority, Ministry of Works & Infrastructure and UNESCO Apia
Office have been working towards coordinating activities
under the Convention the identification, protection and
conservation of Samoa’s natural and cultural heritage sites.
In 2004, the Government endorsed the National Heritage
Conservation Policy. The aim of the Policy was to provide
a framework for the sustainable management of Samoa’s
natural and cultural heritage through (i) the promotion of
a close and consultative relationship between government
and relevant stakeholders on the issue of heritage and heritage preservation; and (ii) to ensure continued beneficial
community access to heritage sites while enhancing the
economic advantages of heritage conservation. The latter
one focuses on community consultations where community input becomes the determining factor. The emphasis
is on enabling local people to play an active role in their
own development, being well informed on issues and be
involved in the decision making process. The advantage of
community participation comes across in the understanding it encourages local populations to appraise and analyse
their own situation and recommend solutions.
Following the approval of the Policy, the Ministry of Natural
Resources & Environment as the leading agency re-activated
the National Heritage Coordinating Committee (NHCC) in
2005 to commence work as outlined in the policy including national efforts towards awareness campaigns with
schools and villages, and community consultations with
the general public on the Convention and the importance
of safeguarding Samoa’s natural and cultural heritage.
78
Preparation of the Tentative List
As a requirement of the Convention, Samoa commenced
preparation for the Tentative List in 2006 which was completed in December 2008. This included an inventory of
key sites of natural and cultural heritage in Samoa. Preliminary field visits were conducted by the NHCC to key sites
considered by the committee as having potential values
to be considered under the World Heritage List. Dr Anita
Smith from La Trobe University was commissioned to conduct the analysis of sites and to assist the Committee with
the preparation of the report.
The two sites considered in the Tentative List – Fagaloa Bay
– Uafato/Tiavea Conservation Zone as a mixed property
and Manono, Apolima and Nuulopa Islands as a cultural
landscape. The two properties were selected based on
information gathered from preliminary consultations with
selected groups whilst conducting the national heritage
inventory of all the sites in Samoa. This was followed with
a series of community consultations on a much wider scale
with the communities closely tied to the selected sites of
Uafato, Tiavea, 4 villages in Manono Island and Apolima.
These consultations were mainly to explain the Convention,
the process of nomination and the criteria for outstanding
universal value and in particular on the following issues:
• A
ffirm agreement of the communities on the
implications that nomination to the World Heritage
List may have in regard to their use of resources
and non-traditional development, tourism and
infrastructure;
• C
onfirm how resources in the sea and on land are
allocated;
• Identify the relationships between the people and
the environment and how they have developed
over time;
• D
ocument traditional ways in which people have
used the land and the sea;
• Gather anthropological data on current and historic settlement patterns as an expression of
the fa’a Samoa (Samoan way);
3
Members of the Samoa National Heritage Coordinating Committee participating in development of Samoa’s Tentative List in 2006.
© MNRE Samoa
• Confirm traditional stories about the landscape;
• D
ocument the relationship of crafts to the forest
and conservation values;
• Finalize boundaries and establish buffer zones and
• U
ndertake comparative analysis of the two sites
to determine their claims to have Outstanding
Universal Value.
Community Consultations in the
development of Samoa’s Tentative List
A series of community consultation were conducted with
all the villages within the selected sites (Fagaloa Bay-Uafato/Tiavea Conservation Zone & Manono, Apolima, Nuulopa Islands) since the start of the work in 2005 to August
2011 prior to the 4th Pacific World Heritage Meeting that
was hosted by Samoa in September 2011. The consultations were held at different stages of Samoa’s preparation
towards meeting its obligations under the WHC. The first
initial consultations with the high chiefs and the village
council from the Uafato and Tiavea villages (which have
direct land ownership of the forest conservation area) were
complicated at first given the history of previous environmental projects that involved the villages. The chiefs were
quite reluctant to allow any discussions between the Committee and the villages due to issues associated with commitments made in the past between other environmental
bodies and the villages. As such, the chiefs were suspicious
of the Government’s interests and intentions with the forest conservation areas.
However, after several meetings with the high chiefs to
explain the purpose of the Convention and the Government’s commitment to conservation of native forests,
the high chiefs and the village council finally gave their
approval for the NHCC to commence preparations for community consultations involving the village council, women’s
groups, untitled men and the youth.
Community consultations with the Manono, Apolima and
Nuulopa Islands also took several separate meetings involving the mayors from each of the 4 villages in Manono Island
and Apolima. These meetings were negotiated through
the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development which holds direct portfolio over village affairs and
the involvement of village mayors. The negotiations with
the mayors and high chiefs from the islands of Manono and
Apolima were comparatively simple than negotiations with
Uafato and Tiavea village. A series of community consultations were then arranged separately for the Manono villages
and Apolima Island. These consultations involved all the high
chiefs, village council, women’s groups and youth.
As a matter of courtesy and cultural protocol, it was important that official communications with the village mayors
and council of chiefs were channelled through the Ministry
of Women, Community and Social Development, which
are responsible with village affairs and community developments. The village mayors come under the direct supervision of the Internal Affairs Office (under this Ministry ).
The experience from these negotiations and consultations
reaffirms the need for government authorities and other
79
3
Community Participatory Approach to Heritage Conservation in Samoa
interested stakeholders to respect cultural protocols and
the importance of achieving community participation and
consent in the early stages of the negotiation process.
Community Consultations after the
submission of Samoa’s Tentative List
In 2011, three years after the submission of Samoa’s
Tentative List, the Committee conducted another series of
community consultations with the selected sites ( Fagaloa –
Uafato/Tiavea Conservation Zone and 4 villages in Manono
Island and Apolima Island in relation to the following:
• R
evisit process of the Tentative List in order
to review and re-confirm status and decisions
endorsed for selected sites;
• Discuss issues relating to the ecological importance
and cultural significance of sites, management,
future developments/plans etc.
• D
iscuss conservation and protection measures and
the level of support and commitment from the
communities.
The programme started with the normal traditional protocols
including the ava ceremony, exchange of oratory proficiency
by the matais (chiefs) followed by presentations by the NHCC
on the Convention and Samoa’s preparation for nomination
in the World Heritage List. A feature highlighted in the presentations was the commitment and management efforts from
the communities (as custodians of the land and resources)
to ensure the conservation of heritage sites/properties. There
were many discussions on the process of nomination including the integrity and authenticity of the sites selected.
The Community Participatory Approach
Samoa’s unique culture and its way of life (faasamoa) is
manifested in a variety of cultural practices whether it be
in a welcoming ava ceremony, celebration of a new church
(faaulufalega ma le taalolo), bestowing a chiefly matai title
(saofai), the funeral of a high chief (maliu), village council
meetings (fono a matai) or the start of a new communitybased project and all revolve around fostering community
participation. The community participatory approach in village affairs stems from the fact that Samoa has a strong
80
tradition of respecting local knowledge and allowing village
fonos (councils) to undertake the role of local governance.
Community consultations or community participatory
approach is used in any meetings between the villages and
other parties and it is a process that is well respected in
Samoa as it allows decisions and plans to be undertaken
by local communities while at the same time, recognising
the authority of the village council to address their own
village affairs. The emphasis with this type of participatory
approach is placed on empowering the local people to
become active and more involved in their own affairs.
In Samoa’s village settings, the matais (village council)
holds the power and authority to direct change, to enforce
village protocols and give directions to the village. This
allows for maintaining law and order within the village and
for safeguarding and preservation of the village environment including land use, resources and community developments. This is the Samoan way based on the Samoan
culture whereby the matai (chiefly) system presides over
communal lands allowing families to live on communal
lands owned and managed by their forefathers. With over
80 per cent of total land in Samoa under customary land
ownership these communal lands remains the main source
of wealth for Samoa representing family, identity, history
and security – the reason why community consultation
using a community participatory approach works well in
Samoa and very much part of its culture.
The participatory approach encourages the key role that all
stakeholders, women, youth, village matais and relevant
groups play in heritage conservation and environmental
management. Through community consultations, the villages and all its stakeholders (including women, youth and
church leaders) become engaged in the discussion process
to ensure that what was discussed reflects community
views, needs and aspirations. Acceptance and ownership
by the landowners and the community of Samoa’s Tentative List are absolutely essential if the Government is to
continue its commitment to nominate a site to the World
Heritage List. The community consultations have always
emphasized conservation of heritage and the principle that
it should always involve a negotiated solution recognising
the values of all the people involved.
3
World Heritage awareness raising and community consultation on Manono Island. Samoa. © MNRE Samoa
below: Manono Island, Samoa. © UNESCO Apia
81
3
Samoan Women: Preservers of their
cultural heritage
Luagalau Fo’isagaasina Eteuati-Shon, National University of Samoa
The cultural heritage of a Samoan is firmly ensconced
in one’s ‘āiga (extended family) and all that effectively serves to uphold the family name. A Samoan’s
cultural identity is deeply ingrained in one’s entitlement to family land, family chiefly titles, family alliances and active practice of reciprocity amongst family members.
The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage 2003 defines intangible culture as ‘practices, representations and expressions, and knowledge and
skills which are transmitted from generation to generation
and which provide communities and groups with a sense
of identity and continuity’ (UNESCO Basic Texts of the 2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage, 2011).
This definition validates the significant role women play
in the preservation of Samoa’s cultural heritage. Equally
important is the fact that the vital role women play in
conserving the natural and intangible culture in Samoa to
ensure the continuity of the Samoan identity is an inherent
human right.
Generally, when the role of women in the preservation
of culture in Samoa is discussed, attention is focused on
women’s weaving and the products of this activity. This
narrow perception may be attributed to the fact that these
are commonly observed practical activities of women,
the products of which are used in traditional ceremonial
events. This short article, based on the author’s experience
growing up in Samoa, almost nineteen years of working
with women in the community and literature review, serves
to demonstrate the spectrum of natural and intangible culture in Samoa that women play a central role in preserving.
It encompasses key roles of women as:
• Peacemakers
• Makers of Wealth
• Custodians and Practitioners of Traditional
medicine
• Teachers of Cultural Etiquette and Language
• Custodians of family genealogy
82
• Promoters of family alliances
• Wearers of Tattoos
• Teachers of Cultural Performing Arts
• Conservers of the Environment
• Holders of chiefly titles
To fully recognize the real significance of the role of women
in preserving the natural and intangible cultural heritage in
Samoa, it is important to understand the status of women
in the Samoan society and culture, from a gender perspective. Equally important is the understanding that the traditional status of women has undergone changes in response
to western influences on the social and economic development of Samoa. However, such development has opened
other opportunities for women in Samoa to utilize their
traditional skills and knowledge. This view is supported
by Dr. Peggy Fairbairn – Dunlop who argues that tourism
development has given women opportunities ‘for learning
new skills and applying old skills in new fields’ (FairbairnDunlop 1994).
Status of Women in Samoa
When a girl is born, her position and status in her family is
already established. When a boy is born, he has to earn his
entitlement to a chiefly title. As the feagaiga (covenant with
brothers), the tama sā (sacred child), i’o i mata (apple of the
eye) of the brother, the traditional role of women in Samoa
has always been one of honour and respect. Women have
the same claim to family land and family chiefly titles as
men. This perspective is positively espoused by Aiono Dr.
Fanaafi Le Tagaloa who asserts that ‘this status has given
women the choices of roles and responsibilities accorded
them as Samoan women.’ (Fairbairn-Dunlop 2000) In addition to their primary roles and responsibilities as mothers
and wives, Samoan women have had the choice of traditional roles and responsibilities including as peacemakers, wealth makers and teachers. The skills and knowledge
involved with these traditional roles and responsibilities
have been passed down through generations to today’s
generation with the confidence that such a vital part of
Samoa’s cultural heritage and identity will be preserved
through transmission to future generations.
With the increasing monetized economy of Samoa, women
have expanded their choices and taken on new roles and
responsibilities in addition to their traditional roles. They are
now engaged in small business ventures including as market vendors, have become career women, have assumed
the responsibility for village sanitation and hygiene as well
as primary health care through village women’s committees, are more actively involved in food production and
have taken on the responsibility of spearheading a number
of village development projects.
E au le ‘ina’ilau a tama’ita’i: Gender
Perspective
Literally translated, this means the row of thatching by
women reaches the end. This saying originated from a
Samoan legend which tells of a competition between
men and women in thatching the roof of a chief’s house
where the row of thatching by women reached completion
whereas that by men did not. In the Samoan societal context, this is translated to mean women are achievers in any
and all activities in which they may choose to be engaged.
This special honorific fundamentally encapsulates the gender dimension of the roles and responsibilities of Samoan
women in all spheres of Samoan society including their role
in preserving the Samoan cultural heritage, and is commonly
used to recognize women’s contribution. As mentioned
earlier, women like men are rightful heirs to family chiefly
titles and resources. They have equal opportunities as men
to education at all levels, employment, health services and
public office including as Members of Parliament.
However, the number of women Members of Parliament
has remained disproportionately low since the inception of
Parliament in 1962. To address this imbalance, the government has before Parliament at present a Bill to amend the
Constitution to guarantee 10 per cent of seats in Parliament
for women. This disparity has important implications regarding women’s participation in the highest level of decision
making in Samoa. A number of factors have been identified
as responsible for the comparatively low number of women
members of Parliament. As a person has to be a matai
(holder of a chiefly title) to be a member of Parliament, one
of the factors identified is the much lower number of women
matai compared to the number of men matai. Although it is
true that women matai make up only about 30 per cent of
all registered matai, it is argued that there are at least 2000
women matai, yet in all Parliamentary elections to date,
the number of women matai who have run as candidates
has never been over twelve. Another issue raised regarding
women’s rights to participate in national decision making
involves villages which do not allow women to be matais. To
consider this issue in the proper context, only very few villages are implicated, perhaps twelve at the most out of 300
plus villages in Samoa, hence the decision making rights of
women of only those very few villages are affected.
3
Pae ma Auli: Peacemakers
Women have always played a significant role in fostering
peace within families and the village community. A woman
is regarded as the pae ma auli (smoother and ironer), ‘the
one who straightens and irons or smooths over any frictions or problems within her aiga.’ (Aiono Dr. Fanaafi Le
Tagaloa n.d.) Women have an innate talent in negotiating
peace when there are differences within families. They
bring into peacemaking a nurturing perspective which is a
softer and more appealing approach. This role is immensely
facilitated by women’s status as feagaiga which not only
give them the duty to uphold peace but also accord them
the respect by other family members to heed their counsel.
They are also given respect for leadership as chiefs within
their families and wider village community. This role is central to sustaining social cohesion in families and community, the foundation of Samoa’s cultural heritage.
An intrinsic role of women as peacemakers is their role as
togisala (one who pays for the transgression) or redeemer
for a serious action committed by a member of her family against a member of another family. This summons a
humiliating act of asking for pardon or ifoga from the family
of the victim of the offence.
Fai ‘Oa: Makers of Wealth
Women have been long-established as makers of wealth
in Samoa. In spite of the modern measures of wealth, the
traditional yardstick of a Samoan family’s wealth continues
to be the number of the different types of mats a family
has including the number of fine mats or ie toga.
The most valuable item of wealth continues to be the ie
toga which is woven with finely stripped strands of the
leaves of the softer variety of pandanus. This traditional
treasure is used in all ceremonial exchanges between
families and gifting from families to village chiefs, Church
Ministers and dignitaries in occasions such as weddings,
bestowal of chiefly titles and funerals.
‘Le Samoa (traditional Samoan fine mat). Courtesy of Afioga
Letuimanu’asina Dr. Emma Kruse – Va’ai.
© Tu’ifao Tumua, National University of Samoa
83
3
Women’s creativity in designs woven into mats, dyes used,
and methods of preparing the pandanus leaves have been
incorporated into the skills of weaving mats including
the fine mat and passed from generation to generation
of young women. This ensures that the items of Samoan
wealth and valuable traditional treasure of Samoa’s cultural
heritage are preserved.
Another important item in a Samoan family’s wealth is
the siapo or tapa cloth which was traditionally used for
clothing. The introduction and use of modern day fabrics
have replaced this use of the siapo which are now used
only for ceremonial exchanges, gift giving and dance costumes. However, the skills and creativity of women in elei
(siapo printing) demonstrated through the preparation of
the upeti (carved design printing board), selection of the
designs, preparation of the u’a (bark of the mulberry tree
– the raw material used for the production of siapo) and
mixing of dyes for printing the siapo have been preserved
and transmitted for continuity. The art of elei making has
now included the printing of fabrics in the place of u’a.
Due to the rising number of family occasions requiring fine
mats and increasing cash economy, fine mats were hurriedly woven using wider strands of the coarser variety of
pandanus. As a result, the traditional fineness, quality and
dignity associated with the Samoan fine mat was replaced
by coarse and poor quality mats. The traditional one fine
quality mat for a family occasion was substituted with
many coarse mats. An initiative by one of the women’s non
government organizations to return the Samoan fine mat
to its traditional quality and dignity was taken on board by
the government which since 2003 started a nation-wide
programme involving women’s committees in all villages to
revive the weaving of the traditional Samoan fine mat with
funding from the government budget.
The traditional family wealth of fine mats, siapo and other
types of mats now have an economic value in Samoa’s
increasing cash economy, with the sale of these products to fetch additional revenue for families. In addition,
women have utilized their traditional skills and cultural values of respect and hospitality to build successful business
ventures, particularly in the tourism industry.
84
possession. Traditional medicine is divided into three distinct
parts: 1) herbal medicine which is commonly known and
used without the assistance of a traditional healer; 2) massage and bone setting done mostly by men; and 3) medicine
used by traditional healers who are specialists in diagnosing
and treating more complicated and chronic ailments. Many
of the women taulasea are also traditional birth attendants
who have traditional skills and knowledge to deliver babies.
Traditional birth attendants who have been recognized by
the medical profession are utilized mostly in the rural areas.
Women’s knowledge of some traditional medicines are
transmitted to other women, while certain traditional medicines are regarded as family secrets and therefore preserved
and transmitted within these families.
The importance of the role of traditional medicine and
the popularity of the use of traditional medicine to treat
illnesses have resulted in the establishment of an official
Association of Traditional Healers which is presently discussing with the Ministry of Health and Medical Profession
ways in which traditional medicine can be effectively incorporated into the treatment of patients in hospitals.
Teachers of Cultural Etiquette and
Language
Women in Samoa have always played the essential role
as the first teacher of a Samoan child, passing on to them
manners and behavior of respect such as saying please
when asking for something, thank you when given something, to stoop and say tulou (excuse me) when walking in
front of people, sit down and address older people and sit
down when eating. As girls grow older, women teach them
etiquette as demonstrated by the popular Samoan adage
E iloa le tama’ita’i Samoa i lana tu, nofo, savali ma le tautala. As a guideline for young Samoan women, this maxim
is translated to say a Samoan woman is recognized by the
way she sits, stands, walks and talks. She must always carry
herself with honour and grace, respectful of others and
never to be excessively active or loud. This significant role of
women in Samoa is central to the Samoan cultural heritage
of upholding the honour of one’s family.
Taulasea: Custodians/Practitioners of
Traditional Medicine
A very important part of women’s role as teachers of etiquette
is the transmission of their knowledge of traditional practices
such as the proper presentation of gifts at, and mixing of ‘ava
(traditional ceremonial drink) for, ceremonial occasions.
Traditional medicine is an integral part of the Samoan culture and way of life, and continues to be a very important
part of the health care of Samoans, deeply rooted in the
traditional perspective on the cause of illness and view
of health, particularly in the social and spiritual domains.
Women in Samoa have long been recognized as custodians
and practitioners of traditional medicine that treat a wide
variety of maladies, ranging from skin ailments to muscle
disorders to internal ailments such as mouth and throat
infections, digestive tract ailments, women’s ailments and
those of children, to supernaturally induced ailments like
Women also play a significant role in the teaching and continuity of the Samoan language. They teach proper conversational language, language of respect and language used
in oratory by tulāfale (talking chiefs). They teach when and
with whom to use the different types of languages. Women’s role in the transmission of language from generation
to generation is vital as the fine distinction between the
different levels of the Samoan language is central to understanding fundamental cultural values, beliefs, customs and
cultural concepts which give Samoans their identity and
shape their perception of the world.
Custodians of family genealogy
Women, like men, are custodians of family genealogy.
Women’s knowledge of family genealogies are central to
family alliances and claims to family chiefly titles and family land. Women’s role as custodians of family genealogies
becomes essential when family titles and land are contested
in the Lands and Titles Court in Samoa. Women’s knowledge of family genealogies are preserved and transmitted
to family members to ensure the maintenance of family
identity and cultural heritage.
The designs and symbols used and part of the body to be
tattooed are gender specific. Women’s tattoos are confined
to the upper part of the thighs to below the knees and the
back of the hands, whereas men’s tattoos are a full body
tattoo from the upper back to below the knees. The choice
of design and symbols used for both women and men are
distinctive designs of a tattoo guild or family. Men’s tattoos referred to as tatau (tatau) are a rite of passage and
symbol of courage, whereas women’s tattoos known as
malu (shelter) is a symbol of honour as befits the woman’s
status of feagaiga.
Promoters of Family Alliances
Teachers of Cultural Performing Arts
Although the choice of one’s husband is nowadays an individual matter, women continue to play a significant role
in promoting choices which strengthen alliances between
families of high status. Sema sou gafa which translates to
mean wait for the opportunity to establish your genealogy is a saying often used by women to influence young
women to choose their husbands from families of high
status. This role plays a vital part in affirming a Samoan’s
family identity and heritage.
Women in Samoa continue to make an invaluable contribution to the area of Performing Arts in Samoa. In music, the
creativity of women as composers of cultural songs have
been firmly established, with the skills in the use of language and knowledge of legends, cultural protocols and
traditional practices. These same talents have been demonstrated in the art of Samoan Dancing in its various forms
for both men and women, in addition to skills in effectively
translating words of songs into dance movements. Young
women have also made an important contribution by way
of adapting contemporary dance movements to Samoan
dancing. Many Samoan women have produced drama
based on Samoan legends as well as current social issues.
Tattooing
By tradition, women do not perform tattooing in Samoa.
However, as wives of the tattoo artists, they play a significant role in the tattooing process through their presence
to provide mental support and words of encouragement
to their husbands. In this role, a wife of a tattoo artist is
addressed as the meana’i tāua. At the completion of a tattooing process, she is presented special gifts – monetary
and in kind – by the family of the person whose tattoo has
just been completed.
Traditionally, tattooing of women in Samoa was performed
on women of rank only. However, the significance of the
tattoo to a woman’s cultural identity has resulted in the
tattooing of any woman who chooses to be tattooed.
3
Conservers of the Environment
In their role as traditional medicine practitioners, women
play an active part in the preservation and replanting of
medicinal plants in our environment. Similarly, in their role
as wealth makers, women play an important function in
the preservation of mangrove trees and swamps and other
trees used to produce dyes for the printing of siapo as well
as the planting of plants such as the mulberry trees and different species of pandanus that provide the raw materials
for the weaving of mats and making of siapo. As members
of Village Women’s Committees, women continue to be
responsible for the maintenance of clean village environments by enforcing health requirements for toilets, pig
sties, traditional cook houses and participation in government’s village beautification programmes.
Matai: Holders of Chiefly titles
Left: Malu a le tama’ita’i Samoa(Samoan woman’s tattoo);
Right: Tatau a le tane Samoa(Samoan man’s tattoo)
© Tu’ifao Tumua, National University of Samoa.
Traditionally, chiefly titles of families were usually but not
always bestowed on male members. However, a significant
and increasing number of families have bestowed chiefly
titles on women. Being bestowed a chiefly title is an
honour on one hand and a position which carries many
responsibilities on the other. With the exception of the very
few villages which do not allow women to hold chiefly
titles, women matai sit in the Village Council comprising
all matai of the village, the highest authority and decision
making body of a village. Equipped with skills in language,
protocol and leadership, the active participation of women
matai in this decision making forum and input on matters
85
3
discussed and decisions made regarding the administration
and development of the village, are highly respected.
As matai, women have the same opportunity as men matai
to run in the Elections for members of Parliament. Anecdotal
evidence however, shows that women matai generally do
not consider membership in Parliament as their calling, a
stance which may explain in part, the low number of women
running as candidates in Parliamentary elections to date.
Bestowal of matai titles on women, like that on men, affirm
family lineages and claims to family chiefly titles and land.
Conclusion
The roles and responsibilities of women in Samoa as conservers and transmitters of Samoa’s intangible cultural heritage are, without question, vital to the safeguarding and
perpetuation of Samoa’s and the Samoans’ cultural identity. With the ever increasing external influences, Samoa’s
cultural values, beliefs, practices have inevitably undergone changes and some have even been lost. Fortunately,
Samoa is characterized by pride in its fa’a Samoa (Samoan
way of life) such that the essence of its intangible cultural
heritage is vigorously protected. When faced with modern
ideas and values, it takes what is useful and adapt them to
Samoan values, practices and concepts and discards those
that go against the grain of the fa’a Samoa.
Nonetheless, now more than ever, the onus is on women
to ensure that in the practical translation of their roles
and responsibilities as preservers of Samoa’s intangible
culture, their traditional skills, knowledge and innovativeness including new skills in traditional activities, traditional
skills and knowledge in new fields as well as women’s new
roles and responsibilities, are effectively transmitted to, and
embrace by, the younger generations. Only then can we
be fully assured that the cultural heritage and identity of
the Samoan society are protected and perpetuated and the
importance of women’s contribution to this key aspect of
the fa’a Samoa duly inculcated.
Marshalese Weaving © USP Majuro Campus
86
References
Aiono, Fanaafi Le Tagaloa 2003 ‘Customary Ways’,
P. Fairbairn-Dunlop (ed) Samoan Women: Widening Choices, Institute of Pacific Studies, University
of the South Pacific.
Aiono, Fanaafi Le Tagaloa n.d. The Social Status
and the Economic Roles of the Female in Traditional and Modern Society.
Fairbairn-Dunlop, P. 1994 ‘Gender, culture and
tourism development in Western Samoa’, V
Kinnard & D Hall (ed) Tourism: A Gender Analysis,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Government of Samoa 2001 Report on the Status
of Women in Samoa, 2001, Combined Initial, First
and Second Periodic Report on the Convention
on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, Government Printing, Ministry
of Women Affairs 2002.
Eteuati Shon, Luagalau Foisagaasina ‘Traditional
medicine in the islands of the Pacific: its historical
roots, research and utilization and future development’, Traditional Medicine: Better Science, Policy
and Services, Proceedings of a WHO International
Symposium, Awaji Island, Japan, September 2000
WHO Kobe Centre.
Moghdam, Valentine M and Bagheritari, Manilee
2005 ‘ Cultures, Conventions, and the Human Rights
of Women: Examining the Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and the Declaration on Cultural Diversity’, UNESCO Social and
Human Services Papers in Women’s Studies/Gender
Research No.1, <www.unesco.org/shs/gender>
Schoeffel, P. 1983 Women’s Associations in the
Rural Economy: Case Studies from Western Samoa
and East Ne Britain Province, Papua New Guinea.
South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia.
UNESCO, 2011. Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage, Paris: UNESCO.
3
Apolima Island, Samoa included in Samoa’s tentative list. © Anita Smith
Matai title bestowal gifts in Savaii, Samoa. © UNESCO/Naohiro Furutani
87
88
Building Capacity
for World Heritage
in the Pacific
4
© Volker Scholz
89
4
Building Regional Capacity for World
Heritage in the Pacific Islands: toward
a Pacific Heritage Hub
Adi Meretui Ratunabubua, Ministry of Education, National Heritage, Culture & Arts, Fiji
The Pacific World Heritage 2009 Program was initiated under the World Heritage Committee’s Global
Strategy to increase membership and implementation of the Convention in those regions least or
under-represented on the World Heritage List including the Pacific Island countries. Adoption of the
Strategy illustrated that the World Heritage Committee recognised developing nations need support
from the international community to enable them to
effectively engage in the World Heritage process.
The independent Pacific Island countries have lacked the
resources and expertise to nominate properties for inclusion on the World Heritage List and to manage not only
places of outstanding universal value but their heritage
places in general. Activities undertaken over the course of
the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme including the
development of tentative lists and nomination dossier have
the potential to act as flagships for heritage conservation,
increasing awareness of and building institutional, community and individual capacities for the management of heritage places beyond the life of the World Heritage Committee’s initiatives. However the extent to which these activities
and the Program in general are successful in contributing
to long term heritage conservation and management, and
thereby providing a sustainable base for implementation
of the World Heritage Convention is dependent firstly on
whether skills imparted under the banner of the World
Heritage programme are useful and relevant for communities and government agencies beyond the requirements of
the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2011); secondly on
the creation of local Pacific networks for sharing knowledge and skills; and thirdly on the availability of ongoing
training and educational opportunities for transfer and
development of professional skills in heritage conservation. This paper discusses mechanisms to address these
three key issues that have developed over the course of
the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme, most notably
through the evolution of the concept of a Pacific Heritage
Hub, soon to be realised though its establishment at the
University of the South Pacific.
The need to enhance the capacity of the Pacific Island countries to implement the World Heritage Convention was the
90
key driver in the World Heritage Committee’s adoption of
the Pacific 2009 Programme. The Committee was acting
on findings of the Asia Pacific Periodic Report of 2003
(UNESCO, 2004a); a request from the UNESCO National
Commissions of the Pacific Islands to the UNESCO General
Conference in Paris in 2003 and the recommendations of
the UNESCO meeting of Pacific Island countries in Apia in
200331 for long term staffing and consultant support in
the Pacific through a regional focal point in the UNESCO
sub-regional office in Apia; increased efforts to share experiences with and learn from other countries and other
regions of the world and for regional training opportunities
to strengthen professional capacities in collaboration with
regional organisations (UNESCO, 2004a:69).
The Action Plan (UNESCO, 2004b) to implement the Pacific
World Heritage 2009 Programme, developed by representatives of Pacific Island countries at Tongariro, Aotearoa/
New Zealand in 2004, advocated a regional approach to
capacity building that would consider a range of means by
which skills could be developed and knowledge shared to
maximise benefits of training opportunities and activities.
Threaded within the many proposed activities of the Action
Plan were three key requirements:
• o
ngoing professional training and skills development within the region
• a regional network to share information, knowledge and skills
• a focal point to coordinate and facilitate heritage
related activities in the region
31. W
orld Heritage Capacity Building workshop for the Pacific Island countries was held at the UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, Samoa, in
February 2003. The objective of the workshop was to build professional
and institutional capacity of the Pacific Island Member States to promote the implementation of the Convention.
Specific activities listed in the Action Plan (UNESCO, 2004b)
included a range of opportunities for people working in
government agencies to gain general knowledge about
heritage protection and management and for communities to gain skills in managing their heritage in the context
of continuing customary land tenures and practices. These
initiatives included the coordination of training and funding
opportunities and information sharing through the creation
of a permanent position of a World Heritage Officer for the
region (UNESCO, 2004b) and the development of online
technical training modules or programmes for people in the
Pacific Island countries along the lines of the training programme for Pacific Heritage managers funded by UNESCO
and produced by Australia ICOMOS and Deakin University,
Australia in 2004 (UNESCO, 2004b Action 6.1).
Critical to long term capacity building under the Pacific
World Heritage 2009 Programme was recognition that the
small populations of Pacific, the great distances between
many communities and their scarce resources limit the
effectiveness of models of training and skills development
used elsewhere and this needed consideration in the development of training programmes and opportunities. The
most commonly used and arguably cost effective model for
delivering training in the region, especially where funded
by international donors, is through short intensive workshops that bring together representatives from different
organisations, communities and countries for short training periods. Over the five years of the Programme techni-
4
cal assistance funded through the World Heritage Committee’s International Assistance programme was provided
for the development of tentative lists and/or nomination
dossier and delivered through intensive workshops of in
many Pacific countries including Marshall Islands, Palau,
Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Samoa,
Tonga, Fiji. In almost all cases these workshops were not
only the first introduction to the requirements for World
Heritage nominations but the first step in the creation of a
national heritage inventory, site recording and assessment
processes that are well established in most developed
countries. Although the knowledge of the World Heritage
system provided by these intensive workshops has been
vital for Pacific government agencies and communities
who wish to engage in World Heritage listing processes,
the extent to they also provided generic skills in heritage
management to underpin listing processes and contribute
to the underlying capacity of the region has been constrained by their narrow focus and limited time length. This
is further exacerbated by the high turnover of personnel
in government agencies in the region which negates the
value of training programmes for individuals rather than
those focusing on building institutional capacity. More generally, the effectiveness of ad hoc or once-off workshops as
a means of providing skills training is questionable when
they take place outside of or unconnected to a framework
of ongoing planned and progressive skills development and
transfer of knowledge (Smith, 2007). The creation of such
a framework had been identified as a priority in the Pacific
Giovanni Boccardi of the World Heritage Centre Pacific addressing Pacific Island representatives as the Pacific World Heritage meeting in
Maupiti, French Polynesia, November 2009.
91
4
Building Regional Capacity for World Heritage in the Pacific Islands: toward a Pacific Heritage Hub
Action Plan but unlike once-off technical workshops, funding for longer term training and professional skills development is not readily available through international donors
or the World Heritage Committee’s International Assistance
programme. Alternate models for the provision of training
needed to be identified if the World Heritage Pacific 2009
Programme was to contribute to addressing regional need
for training in heritage conservation.
Between 2004 and 2011 six regional meetings were held
as part of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme,
funded by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in association with host countries Aotearoa/New Zealand (2004
and 2007), Vanuatu (2005), Australia (2008), French Polynesia (2009) and Samoa (2011). Each was attended by
representatives of most if not all Pacific Island countries
and some territories. The primary aim of each meeting
was to bring representatives of the Pacific Island States
together to provide an update on their progress against
the Action Plan and to promote awareness and understanding of the Convention, the Operational Guidelines
and the nomination process. Each meeting also included
a capacity building component around a specific aspect
of the World Heritage process for example ‘management’
which was the focus of the Cairns workshop in 2008
but not the opportunity for much needed training in
practical heritage management skills. The regional meetings did however build regional capacity for heritage
conservation in other very important ways. Importantly,
under framework of the World Heritage Convention, the
meetings bought together people involved in natural and
cultural heritage conservation many of who sit in separate
government departments under different ministries in the
Pacific Island governments. This sharing of knowledge and
ideas was particularly important given the shared histories and heritage of many Pacific Island nations and that
many Pacific Island communities do not distinguish natural
from cultural heritage. Through the regular, almost annual
meetings an informal regional network was established
that includes people working in government agencies and
non-government organisations responsible for the protection of heritage places, building on existing networks
including the Pacific Islands Museums Association (PIMA)
to become what is now known as the Pacific Heritage Network. This network provides an essential framework for
sharing of professional knowledge and expertise within the
region in association with non-government organisations
including ICOMOS Pasifika (established in 2007 through
the efforts of members of the Pacific Heritage Network),
Pacific Islands Museums Association, Conservation Internationale, World Wide Fund for Nature, IUCN Oceania along
with the inter-governmental regional organisations looking after heritage conservation – the Human Development
Programme (Culture) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP).
Small group discussion around a ‘Pacific Heritage Academy,’ Regional World Heritage Meeting, Cairns, Australia, 2008.
92
The regional World Heritage meetings also provided the
opportunity for identification and discussion of issues in
heritage conservation, and specifically capacity building,
that are common throughout the region – in both the
Pacific Island countries and territories – and potential pathways and priorities for addressing them. Participants consistently argued that at a regional level the most practical
and economically sustainable approach to capacity building would be the integration of long-term systematic training within existing regional education programmes. However to achieve this, heritage conservation and especially
cultural heritage conservation would need greater visibility
and to be considered a priority by the leaders of Pacific
Island nations.
in schools. The regional strategies locate cultural heritage
conservation as a regional priority alongside environmental
conservation and provide a framework and impetus for
educational initiatives building awareness of Pacific Island
heritage in general and generic skills in heritage management in the context of sustainable development thereby
providing a foundation for implementation of the World
Heritage Convention in the region. In this regard the
strategies align with the objectives of the United Nations
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) programme,
providing education that allows learners all levels of the
education system, including community level, to acquire
the skills, capacities, values and knowledge required to
ensure sustainable development.
The Pacific Islands Forum is the key regional inter-govern
mental organisation comprising sixteen independent Pacific
Island nations. The Pacific Plan is the master strategy of the
Pacific Islands Forum that guides the work of national governments, regional agencies and development partners to
achieve the objectives of the Forum countries. The Pacific
Plan as endorsed by Forum Leaders in 2005 and revised in
2007 includes under the strategic objective of Sustainable
Development: Improved natural resource and environmental
management (Objective 5) and Recognised and protected
cultural values, identities and traditional knowledge (Objective 11). These two objectives, agreed by the leaders of
Pacific Island countries provided the mandate for development of a strategy to build capacity in heritage conservation
through the regional inter-governmental organisations.
Together with the establishment of a regional network of
skilled professionals, university level professional education
and skills development opportunities within the region
were a priority in the original and current Pacific World
Heritage Action Plans. Small island populations coupled
with limited resources mean that Pacific Island nations cannot individually train and support the development of the
range of professionally qualified people whose expertise
may be required in heritage management. However at a
regional level and through the sharing of skills and knowledge this may be possible. At present there are no formal
qualifications in cultural heritage management offered by
universities in the Pacific Islands although there is limited
training available in allied disciplines such as archaeology and planning and in environmental management. In
general, Pacific Islanders who wish to obtain or to update
professional skills in heritage management need to have
the opportunity, the financial assistance and ability to study
abroad at universities in Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand,
Hawai’i, Japan and elsewhere, severely limiting the numbers of trained professionals in the region and reinforcing
the current reliance on non-local expertise. In response to a
similar situation in the Caribbean Island nations, a long-term
training programme focusing on cultural heritage management known as Caribbean Capacity Building Programme
(CCBP) offers a professional training under the banner of
UNESCO World Heritage. The programme offers a series of
freely available online teaching modules with core training
in the World Heritage Convention and a series of modules
focusing on the various aspects of management including
tourism, historic centres, cultural landscapes and natural
heritage designed specifically for the Caribbean countries
by a consortium of non-local universities. The Caribbean
Capacity Building Program was discussed at recent regional
meetings of the World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme
as a model with potential in the Pacific region for providing
a practical and relatively inexpensive mechanism for skills
development under the umbrella of a ‘Pacific Heritage
Academy’ (UNESCO, 2010 ‘Regional Activities’).
Recent advances under the Objective 11 have culminated in a draft Regional Cultural Strategy (2010-2020)
led by the Council of Pacific Arts and Culture facilitated
through the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)
that will be presented to the Pacific Ministers for Culture
of the Forum countries for consideration by the Intergovernmental technical committee at the Pacific Arts and
Culture conference to be held at the 11th Pacific Arts
Festival in Honiara, Solomon Islands in July 2012. The
Strategy identifies six priority targets to be addressed –
Traditional Knowledge; Cultural Sites, Places and Spaces;
Cultural Infrastructure and Institutions; Cultural Industries; Cultural Goods and Services; and Cultural Practitioners. Sitting alongside the Strategy is the complementary
SPC Pacific Culture and Education Strategy (2010-2015)
for strengthening culture in education that was endorsed
by the Ministers for Education of the Pacific Forum countries in 2010. Goals in both the Cultural and Education
Strategies aim to enhance understanding of local, national
and regional histories, places and events are linked and
complement each other. With these two strategies in place
it will be possible to integrate the objectives and activities
of the recently adopted second Pacific World Heritage
Action Plan (2010-2015) (UNESCO, 2010) with the regional
training and education strategies. The stated aims include
the development of Heritage Conservation courses within
the region’s Technical Vocational Education Training (TVET)
programme and the development of heritage programmes
4
The concept of a Pacific Heritage Academy emerged in
response to needs identified by Pacific Island representatives at Tongariro 2007, Cairns 2008 and Maupiti 2009;
responds to the call for assistance in the Appeal to the
93
4
Building Regional Capacity for World Heritage in the Pacific Islands: toward a Pacific Heritage Hub
World Heritage Committee from Pacific Island States Parties in 2007 (Pacific Heritage Appeal) (see Smith this volume) and is a priority regional action in the Pacific World
Heritage Action Plan 2010 -2015. The concept of a Pacific
Heritage Academy has evolved into the establishment of a
Pacific Heritage Hub to strengthen and increase communication networks, coordinate training opportunities and
bring together donors and projects – through the work of
regionally based staff hosted by existing organization. In
2010 the Australian Government through its Funds-in-Trust
held at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre supported a
scoping study to further develop the concept of a Pacific
Heritage Hub. The stated aim for the Hub is to ‘enhance
and strengthen communication, coordination and the
sharing of resources and knowledge among the Pacific
World Heritage community, its international partners and
supporting institutions ... build capacity across all facets
of heritage management and strengthen the acquisition
and effective dispersal of funds’ (Tierra Mar Consulting
2011:80). The study evaluated the sustainability of various
funding mechanisms, models for the provision of training
and networking tools and a potential host for the Hub in
existing regional organisation. The study was discussed
with Pacific Island country representatives at the Pacific
World Heritage Workshop, Apia, in September 2011 and
following this the UNESCO Apia Office contacted potential
regional organizations to seek an expression of interest
to host the Hub. The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP) and the University of the
South Pacific (USP), a consortium of 12 Pacific Island States
with a main campus in Suva, Fiji responded to this call positively and based on an evaluation by TierraMar (2011), the
hosting of the Hub will rest with the University of the South
Pacific utilising its established capacity building and teaching function. The University’s internet network linking its
satellite campuses in various Pacific Island nations provides
a robust communication tool and infrastructure for training and networking activities.
The creation of a Pacific Heritage Hub aligns with a key output of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s Regional
Cultural Education Strategy (2010- 2015) to have a Pacific
Heritage Academy providing ongoing and sustainable training and coordination of heritage programmes. The moves
towards general heritage skills development through schools
and TVET, the regional technical training programme and
professional skills development opportunities has prompted
consideration of a Regional Pacific Heritage Certification
and the development of an accredited training programme.
The Pacific Heritage Hub is to be launched in 2012 at the
11th Pacific Arts Festival and will be housed within the
Oceania Centre for Arts and Culture at the Suva Campus of
the University of the South Pacific. Establishment funds also
have been provided by the Australian Government.
94
Provided sustainable, ongoing support can be found
through regional organisations and international partnerships, the Hub it will make a key contribution to building
a solid foundation to support future World Heritage initia
tives in local communities and governments. Although
the need to strengthen underlying regional capacity and
especially skills training was clear from the outset of the
World Heritage Pacific 2009 Programme, the pathway by
which this could best be achieved was not. The Programme
has indirectly created the pathway through providing the
opportunities for discussion and networking that have
led from initial requests for external funding to create a
new World Heritage training programme, focal point and
position for the World Heritage Officer to the embedding
of professional training in heritage management and processes for communication and transfer of this knowledge
within in regional education institutions and systems and
local professional networks. The emphasis has shifted from
World Heritage per se to building a foundation on which
World Heritage initiatives may grow in future. In this new
context the activities to promote and assist in the implementation of the Convention that are listed in the Pacific
Action Plan 2010-2015 will make a valuable contribution
to the capacity of communities and countries in the region
to manage their heritage.
References
Smith 2007 Building Capacity In Pacific Island
Heritage Management: Lessons from those who
know best. Archaeologies: Journal of the World
Archaeological Congress 3(3): pp. 335-352.
Tierra Mar Consulting 2011. Scoping Study for
a Pacific Heritage Hub. Report prepared for the
UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, Samoa.
UNESCO 2011. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. 2004a. The State of World Heritage
in the Asia-Pacific Region 2003. World
Heritage Papers 12. Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. 2004b. Action Plan for the implementation of World Heritage Pacific 2009.
Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre < http://
whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/
activity-6-1.pdf>
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2010. Pacific
World Heritage Action Plan (2010-2015).
Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre < whc.
unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/
activity-682-2.pdf >
4
ICOMOS Pasifika
ICOMOS Pasifika is the ICOMOS International
Scientific Committee of the Pacific Islands created
2007 to further the conservation and protection of heritage places in the Pacific Islands.
The first Board of ICOMOS Pasifika was elected
in 2007 and comprises President, two Vice
Presidents, Secretary, Treasurer and Secretariat
who are heritage professionals from the Pacific
region. The current President is Christophe
Sand, an archaeologist from New Caledonia.
The Committee has several key aims:
• t o raise awareness of the conservation
of heritage places in the Pacific Islands
amongst local, national and regional
cultural organisations in the Pacific
• t o provide a forum for discussion and
for information exchange, regionally and
internationally, on matters of principle
and of technical, legal and administrative
practice affecting the conservation of
heritage places in the region
• and focus on the provision of information to the general public, traditional
landowners and political organisations
about the conservation of heritage
places in the region.
http://australia.icomos.org/get-involved/international-scientific-committees/icomos-pasifika/
• act
as an expert body to promote
regional cooperation amongst professionals involved in studies relating to
heritage places in the region
ICOMOS Pasifika meeting Kone, New Caledonia in 2010. Front row L – R: Tuliana Cirivakayawa (Administrator, Pacific
Islands Museums Association), Marriane Tissandier (Conservator, Noumea Museum), Christophe Sand (President ICOMOS
Pasifika), Adi Mere Ratunabuabua (Chair, Pacific Islands Museums Association) Antonio Ramirez (Guam), Suzie Yee Shaw
(ICOMOS Pasifika, Fiji), Hon. Sir Albert Va’ea (Tonga). Back row L – R: Iliesa Butuivalu (ICOMOS Pasifika, Fiji), Tarisi Vunidilo
(Secretary General, Pacific Islands Museums Association). © ICOMOS Pasifika
95
4
Safeguarding Nan Madol, Federated States of Micronesia
Safeguarding Nan Madol,
Federated States of Micronesia
Diana Roma, UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, Samoa
In the centre of the Pacific Ocean off the shore
of the island of Pohnpei in the Federated States
of Micronesia (FSM) lies Nan Madol, the ruins
of an ancient ceremonial centre, often referred
to as the ‘Venice of the Pacific’, one of the largest and most spectacular archaeological sites in
the Pacific. Nan Madol together with the site of
Lelu on the island of Kosrae, comprise a serial
cultural property submitted for inclusion in the
Tentative List of the FSM in 2012.
The archaeological site of Nan Madol is composed of 95 small to large artificial inlets made
mostly of basalt. The islets are scattered over
an expanse of ocean covering roughly 1.5km
x 0.7km adjacent to Pohnpei Island. Archaeological research indicates construction of the
islets began around 500 AD. The Saudeleur
Dynasty of chiefs expanded this initial construction until about 1200 AD. According to oral
tradition the Saudeleur Dynasty was conquered
by Isokelekel, a young warrior from the islands
of Kosrae located 480 km east of Nan Madol
around 1500 to 1600 AD and the site was then
abandoned. The complex of ruins is composed
of palaces, temples, mortuaries, and residential
sectors, with each of the 95 islets having its
own name and associated oral history.
Nan Madol is testimony to the power of the
Saudeleur Dynasty , and is considered a sacred
place by local residents.
Following abandonment Nan Madol was left in
a ruinous state and over-grown with trees, vines
and bushes. In light of the importance of the
site and the threat to the site posed by rising sea
levels, the Government of the FSM requested
UNESCO to provide assistance in ensuring
proper conservation of the site and to prepare a
management plan with a view to inscription of
the property on the Tentative List of FSM.
Nan Madol, one site in the serial cultural property ‘Ceremonial Centres of the Early Micronesian States: Nan Madol and Lelu’
included on the Tentative List of Federated States of Micronesia in 2012. © Akatsuki Takahashi
96
4
Participants in Community Consultation on the Nan Madol Archaeological Site of Pohnpei November 2011. © Seiji Shirono
UNESCO has been assisting the Government
of FSM in their efforts to safeguard Nan Madol
with a view to a future nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List. The following
results have been achieved:
• A
n information brochure on ‘Nan Madol
Archaeological site of Pohnpei; has been
published with the financial assistance of
Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Culture Heritage (JCIC).
• A consultation workshop on the safeguarding of Nan Madol was held in Ponhpei from
23 to 26 November 2011. The consultation
provided the first opportunity for all key
stakeholders to convene and discuss the
safeguarding of Nan Madol. It examined
issues relating to the Nan Madol safeguarding such as; i) community participation,
ii) environmental management, iii) Pacific
regional cooperation, iv) reconciling
safeguarding and promotion for sustainable development, v) national strategy and
action plan, as well as through field visit to
the site. Through discussions, agreement
was reached on a work plan, the neces-
sary resources and a timeline to prepare
and submit a nomination. Commitments
of further contributions to the work were
made by the local leadership and community, the state and national governments,
and by national and international NonGovernment Organisations. The workshop
was funded under the UNESCO/Japanese
Funds-in-Trust and conducted in partnership with JCIC-Heritage.
• In January 2012, FSM submitted
“Ceremonial Centres of the Early
Micronesian States: Nan Madol and Lelu”
to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
for inclusion on its Tentative List, to be
nominated in the near future.
97
4
Building institutional and community
capacity for World Heritage in Papua
New Guinea: The Kuk Early Agricultural
Site and Beyond
Tim Denham, La Trobe University, Australia
At the time of the inscription of the Kuk Early Agricultural Site (hereafter referred to as Kuk) in the World
Heritage List in 2008, there was very limited institutional and community capacity or experience of World
Heritage in Papua New Guinea. However, over the last
few years some progress has been made in building
capacity for World Heritage nomination and management within the country. Here, these recent developments are considered against the historical backdrop
of the Kuk nomination process. As such, Kuk serves as
a case study for the nomination and post-inscription
management of World Heritage within developing
countries, within the Pacific and beyond.
The Kuk nomination process
The early stages in the nomination process for Kuk were
initiated in 1997 (Strathern and Stewart 1998), approximately a decade before its eventual successful nomination (Department of Environment and Conservation 2007;
Muke et al. 2007). In 1997, Papua New Guinea became a
State Party to the World Heritage Convention. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) was mandated to be the implementing agency responsible for the
nomination, management and protection of World Heritage sites within the country. However, this role was not
clear to many working on draft nomination documents
until the mid-2000s.
Up until this time, a variety of agencies and individuals
took lead roles in the nomination of Kuk. The Papua New
Guinea National Museum and Art Gallery (hereafter ‘PNG
Museum’) initiated the nomination process in 1997 under
the direction of Dr. Pamela Swadling (then Head, Archaeology Section, PNG National Museum; Araho 1998; Golson
and Swadling 1998; Mandui 1998; Moutu 1998). Subsequently, and continuing until the early 2000s, the institutional focus shifted and the nomination process was led by
Dr. Joseph Ketan (then at National Research Institute) and
Dr. John Muke (then at University of Papua New Guinea
and independent consultant), under the authority of the
National Commission for UNESCO and with the guidance
of the now-deceased Regina Kati (former Head, National
Commission; Ketan 1998; Ketan and Muke, 2001). By the
98
mid 2000s, the nomination process was adopted by the
mandated authority within the country, DEC, but it had
already stalled.
All these initiatives, whether organisational or individual,
were well-intentioned. However, there was a constant
shift in focus with consequent dislocations and a loss of
institutional memory. Namely, the nomination process was
repeatedly associated with specific individuals or organisations, which often did not effectively communicate and
co-operate with one another, or build upon previous work.
Due to a lack of institutional leadership, by the mid-2000s
there had been limited capacity building for World Heritage within the country and the Kuk nomination process
was drifting.
The catalyst for re-invigorating the Kuk nomination, and
more generally World Heritage in Papua New Guinea, was
the National World Heritage Action Planning Workshop
in Port Moresby in 2006 funded by the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre. The workshop was attended by: representatives of numerous government agencies, non-government organisations and individuals with responsibility
for, or interest in, cultural and natural resources in Papua
New Guinea; several provincial administrators (the highestranking civil servant within a province); UNESCO representatives from Paris, Apia and the National Commission
in Port Moresby; and, a handful of overseas experts. The
workshop was the first to inclusively and openly address
World Heritage issues within the country. Significantly for
subsequent developments, at this workshop DEC publicly
assumed responsibility and became identifiable as the lead
organisation for World Heritage within the country. There
were several major outcomes of this workshop, including:
an institutional framework and strategy were developed
for the nomination and management of World Heritage
sites within the country, a Tentative List of intended World
Heritage sites for the country was formulated, and steps
were taken to ensure the completion of the nomination of
the Kuk Early Agricultural Site.
At the workshop, Dr. Tim Denham and Dr. John Muke
were formally invited by the Department of Environment
and Conservation to complete the nomination process,
4
Kuk Early Agricultural Site, Papua New Guinea, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2008. © Ian Lilley
which was urgently required in order for DEC to acquit its
obligations to UNESCO. Dr. Denham’s involvement arose
from his archaeological research at the site (Denham et al.
2003), which built upon Professor Jack Golson’s previous
investigations (Golson, 1977). Dr. Denham was responsible for technical aspects and drafting of the nomination
document; he worked on the nomination in a voluntary
capacity. Dr. Muke’s involvement arose because he was an
archaeologist from the Wahgi valley who was well known
to the Kawelka community at Kuk; he was responsible for
community consultations and formulation of a draft traditional management plan.
Although ultimate authority for World Heritage within Papua
New Guinea rests with DEC, initiatives at the provincial and
community levels were instrumental in ensuring the successful nomination of the site. As with any issue associated with
cultural heritage management within the country, there
needs to be an alignment between national, provincial and
local interests (Mandui, 2006). The Western Highlands Provincial government initiated a Kuk World Heritage Management Committee in 1998, which functioned in various guises
until the early 2000s (Muke et al. submitted). The Kawelka
have been strong advocates of protection of archaeological
remains at Kuk, and their commitment enabled the drafting
of management guidelines through close consultation with
Dr. Muke’s team (Muke et al. 2007).
Together with the assistance of various collaborators and
contributions, the nomination was completed and submitted to UNESCO in 2007 (DEC 2007). In 2008, the Kuk Early
Agricultural Site was formally inscribed on World Heritage
List at the 32nd Session of The World Heritage Committee
in Québec City, Canada. Dr. Denham was present at that
meeting as the sole representative for Papua New Guinea’s
nomination. The site was accepted as a cultural landscape
under two criteria (UNESCO, 2009:169):
Criterion (iii): The extent of the evidence of early agriculture
on the Kuk site can be seen as an exceptional testimony to
a type of exploitation of the land which reflects the culture
of early man in the region.
Criterion (iv): Kuk is one of the few places in the world
where archaeological evidence suggests independent agricultural development and changes in agricultural practice
over a 7,000 and possibly a 10,000 year time span.
Identifying the problems
Although the nomination of Kuk was ultimately successful,
the historical review above highlights major institutional
and operational problems within Papua New Guinea at
every stage of the nomination process. These problems
have become the focus of subsequent efforts to build institutional capacity within the country.
Foremost, the process highlights what had been a lack
of leadership within the country on World Heritage. This
largely resulted from individuals and institutions being
unaware that DEC was the mandated authority for World
Heritage. Different organisations operated in an ad hoc
99
4
Building institutional and community capacity for World Heritage in
Papua New Guinea: The Kuk Early Agricultural Site and Beyond
manner in an effort to complete the nomination. DEC did
not effectively adopt its mandated leadership role until the
mid-2000s.
Following from the above, several key institutions with an
interest in World Heritage within Papua New Guinea did
not effectively communicate or co-operate. At various times
in the development of nomination, different individuals or
organisations took the lead with the nomination, only to
be superseded by another. For various reasons, this often
resulted in the marginalisation or alienation of those who
had previously worked on the nomination. Consequently,
there was a lack of co-ordination and co-operation among
the few people with expertise or a professional interest in
World Heritage within the country.
In part these problems were a product of governmental
structures and spheres of responsibility at the national level.
DEC was traditionally responsible for natural resources,
whereas other institutions (such as the Papua New Guinea
National Museum and Art Gallery and the National Cultural
Commission) were responsible for cultural resources. There
had been limited co-operation across this cultural-natural
divide in the past. Kuk had traditionally been viewed as an
archaeological site and archaeologists undertaking research
at the site had worked closely with staff at the PNG National
Museum and Art Gallery. Even though Kuk was nominated
as an organically evolved cultural landscape, institutional
‘ownership’ of the site was felt by those working in the
cultural sector. This was in contrast to many other sites on
the Tentative List, which although listed under mixed criteria were better-known for natural values.
The resultant problems were manifest in all sorts of ways.
Sometimes, people who had previously worked on the
nomination refused, or were directed not to assist those
who had inherited the project. At other times, efforts to
bring different stakeholders together failed because some
refused to attend meetings or to participate constructively.
These problems should not be personalised, namely they
should not be seen as a failure of individuals to include or
participate. Rather, these problems were institutional; they
resulted from the lack of an institutional framework within
the country that included and defined roles for different
stakeholder groups involved in World Heritage, whether for
the country as a whole, for specific sites, or for establishing
linkages between local, provincial and national levels.
As a result of institutional failings and rivalries, completion
of the Kuk nomination process relied heavily upon external expertise, drawn from either outside of the country or
outside of a provincial or national institution. In part, this
reliance reflected a lack of expertise within the country. In
part, the reliance upon external expertise was a short-term
solution for completing the nomination process for Kuk;
those working on the nomination could work effectively
free from institutional constraints. However, this failed to
build effective capacity for management of the property
following inscription in 2008 in key areas:
100
a. T he nomination process included institutional
arrangements and agreements for management
after inscription that DEC committed to, but of
which it did not feel ownership. Indeed, it could
be argued that at the time of submission in 2007,
no-one within DEC felt ownership of the Kuk
nomination, perhaps highlighted by the absence
of anyone from DEC at the 2008 UNESCO World
Heritage Committee meeting.
b. T he nomination was completed with limited
engagement of DEC staff, or staff at other institutions within Papua New Guinea; namely there was
no associated education, training or capacity building. The lack of capacity building was a dual product of time pressures and fiscal constraints. The
final nomination document was to be submitted
in early 2007 and was produced on a shoe-string
budget that barely covered essential costs; it did
not allow for any capacity building programmes.
c. T he nomination process was completed through
the assistance of and engagement with the Western Highlands Provincial government; however,
institutional links between provincial and national
levels for managing World Heritage were at that
time weak to non-existent.
d. The nomination process required intensive engagement with local Kawelka land-holders at Kuk.
This work was undertaken by Dr. Muke and his
colleague, Mr. Jo Mangi. Dr. Muke had been visiting Kuk since the early 1990s, often with Professor
Golson, and established strong links with the landholders in the core area of the site. However, DEC
had almost no visibility on the ground and had
limited engagement with Kawelka land-holders.
Fulfilment of post-nomination
requirements
The acceptance of Kuk to the World Heritage List in 2008
came with several recommendations and requests (UNESCO,
2009:168-170). A ready way to evaluate institutional and
community capacity building for World Heritage within Papua
New Guinea is to consider whether these requirements have
been fulfilled. They are as follows (UNESCO, 2009: 169-170):
4. Recommends that the State Party submits by
1 February 2009:
a. the completed Management Plan and confirmation
of its approval by the Kawelka landowners, and of
its implementation;
b. progress with the establishment of Organic Law;
c. progress with designation of the property as a
Conservation Area, and of the associated formal
land management agreement with the local community for aspects of site management;
d. p
rogress with the establishment of a formal
memorandum of understanding between relevant
national, provincial and local government authorities
and other stakeholders concerning management
responsibilities on the ground and reporting lines;
5. Requests the State Party to provide a commitment to:
a. resource heritage management training for local
people and appropriate local, provincial and
national government officers;
b. putting in place planning policies to protect the
wider setting and to extending the buffer zone as
land tenure issues are resolved.
In terms of the recommendations, the management plan
has not been completed (4a), and consequently neither has
it been approved by the local Kawelka land-holders (4a) nor
have its central tenets been incorporated into an Organic
Law (4b). Indeed, only limited investigations to complete
the management plan have occurred. The site has not been
designated as a Conservation Area and a formal land management agreement has not been devised and approved by
the Kawelka (4c). Lastly, and on a more positive note, memoranda of understandings, or equivalent, have been devised
between DEC and the Western Highlands Provincial government and with principle Kawelka land-holders (4d). In terms
of requests, there has been no training for local Kawelka
land-holders, although there has been training of staff within
DEC (5a). The formulation of planning policies has also been
delayed (5b), although there have been periodic (approximately annual) monitoring visits to the site and liaison with
land-holders and provincial authorities by DEC staff.
In sum, there has been very limited progress on key recommendations and requests following the accession of Kuk
4
to the World Heritage List. The majority of these shortcomings can be traced back to a lack of institutional capacity
within the country to enable effective management of the
site after inscription. Even though some institutional structures have been developed, these advances are offset by
failures in implementation. The relative inaction in fulfilling
these requirements in part stems from the way in which
the nomination process occurred, as outlined above, and
in part derives from the changing institutional context for
World Heritage in Papua New Guinea since 2008, discussed
below. Whatever the reasons, the momentum gained by
the nomination process, including some opportunities for
cementing advances at the provincial and community levels,
has been dissipated.
Changing institutional context for World
Heritage in Papua New Guinea
The institutional context for World Heritage within Papua
New Guinea has changed dramatically over the last four
years. The acceptance of Kuk to the World Heritage List
generated much interest within the country, but has had
only limited impact within government (including DEC) for
which World Heritage remains a peripheral concern. Much
greater changes have been initiated at the national level due
to capacity building associated with the Kokoda Initiative,
which has included a feasibility study for the preparation
of a World Heritage nomination for the ‘Kokoda Track and
Owen Stanley Ranges’ (mixed cultural and natural criteria).
The Owen Stanley Ranges was included on the Tentative List
in 2006. The feasibility of an Owen Stanley Ranges nomination is being advanced primarily through consecutive inter-
Intercutting prehistoric drains expose following archaeological excavation at the Kuk Early Agricultural Site, Papua New Guinea, inscribed on
the World Heritage List in 2008. © Tim Denham
101
4
Building institutional and community capacity for World Heritage in
Papua New Guinea: The Kuk Early Agricultural Site and Beyond
governmental agreements between Australia and Papua
New Guinea. The area proposed for a future Owen Stanley
Ranges nomination includes a very large area with high biodiversity values, a cultural site – the Kokoda Track, as well
archaeological evidence of human occupation dating to c.
45,000 years ago (Summerhayes et al. 2010). The Kokoda
Track witnessed a battle between Japanese and Australian
troops, assisted by Papua New Guineans, during World War
II. As such the site has significance for Australia and Papua
New Guinea and is a major source of tourism income. The
Australian government has allocated substantial funding
towards building community capacity for the Kokoda Track,
with a view to eventual World Heritage nomination.
The funding resulting from successive Joint Understandings
(2008 and 2010) between Australia and Papua New Guinea
in regard to the Kokoda Track region (see Australia Kokoda
Task force this volume) has had some effect on institutional
capacity building at the national level. These effects are most
marked since 2010, following the allocation of funds in regard
to the Kokoda Initiative and the feasibility of the Kokoda
Track and the Owen Stanley Ranges nomination. Although
these initiatives have increased generic capacity and the skills
base within DEC, such as GIS and social mapping, they have
had only limited application to World Heritage issues.
Within DEC, the World Heritage Secretariat has become
operational and a National World Heritage Committee has
met, however the operations of both are severely curtailed
by a lack of executive support. The World Heritage Secretariat co-ordinates nominations and site management
within the country, and has case officers for Kuk and
Owen Stanley Ranges. Associated initiatives included: an
Australian-based consultant was emplaced within DEC for
several years; a new cohort of trainees is emerging within
DEC, some of who have received placements or training
overseas; and, DEC personnel have visited other World
Heritage sites in the Australia-Pacific region.
The National World Heritage Committee chaired by DEC was
formed to include multiple stake holder groups, as well as
representatives from non-governmental organisations and
civil society. The Committee’s composition was designed
to be inclusive and to avoid institutional disputes, as well
as to incorporate those responsible for cultural and natural
resource management at the national level. Although the
Committee provides an inclusive forum for planning World
Heritage within Papua New Guinea, it can only be effective
if it receives sufficient institutional support.
Although increased funding directed to the Kokoda Initiative has undoubtedly increased institutional capacity at
the national level, this has not necessarily benefited Kuk.
Indeed, despite advances at the national level, it could be
argued that these have been to the detriment of the management of Kuk. The focus within DEC has certainly been
directed elsewhere. Although MOUs have been devised
with DEC, the Western Highlands Provincial government
has arguably taken the lead role for the management of
102
Kuk since 2008. Funds have been allocated in the provincial budget, the Kuk World Heritage Management Committee has been reactivated and the site is monitored by a
cultural officer.
Most problematically, there has been limited engagement
by DEC with the Kawelka at Kuk. Although an approximately annual site assessment, community consultation
and monitoring trip has occurred, DEC needs to establish
and maintain closer ties with the Kawelka if community
goodwill is not to be wasted and if continued management of the site is to be effective. Given that the management plan has not been finalised and that relationships
with Kawelka land-holders are not well-established, DEC
needs to have much greater on-the-ground presence irrespective of the varying levels of provincial government
engagement. It is not enough to turn up for short-term
fact gathering missions. DEC needs to have staff at Kuk
for extended periods working with the communities from
different lineages. The continued management of Kuk will
depend on the forging of strong working relationships,
greater mutual understanding and the establishment of
trust between DEC and the Kawelka.
A final word
Capacity building initiatives funded by Australia, most
prominently associated with the Kokoda Initiative, have
greatly assisted institutional capacity building at the national
level in Papua New Guinea. The improved capacity and
skills base resulting from this inter-governmental assistance
can certainly be applied to World Heritage within the country, although as yet this has yet to happen in a substantive
way. These capacity building initiatives were driven by the
significance of the Kokoda Track for Australians however
they have the potential to benefit groups and provinces
in their pursuit of World Heritage management plans and
nominations through flow-on effects and by providing a
model of capacity building.
At present, the focus beyond Kokoda seems to be upon
incrementally improving the protection of cultural and natural heritage within the country. These are slow and small
steps, undertaken in a climate of institutional despondency.
However, given its relative size, Papua New Guinea should
be at the forefront of heritage conservation and management, including World Heritage, within the Pacific. Such a
sea change would require a commitment from the country’s
government to adequately fund and properly support its
own highly dedicated team working on World Heritage.
The problems witnessed in Papua New Guinea are not
unique. They are characteristic of many developing nations
seeking to advance World Heritage nominations and implement management plans (eg, Breen 2007). Those efforts
are similarly beset by deficiencies of expertise, a lack of
funding and institutional frailty, and need to be considered
against broader backdrops of political instability and socioeconomic development.
4
References
Araho, N. 1998. Report on some Kawelka
perceptions on the Kuk archaeological site.
In A. Strathern and P.J. Stewart, eds, Kuk Heritage:
Issues and debates in Papua New Guinea,
pp. 54-63. Port Moresby: PNG National Museum,
Townsville: Centre for Pacific Studies and
Pittsburgh: Okari Research Group.
Breen, C. 2007. Advocacy, international development and World Heritage sites in sub-Saharan
Africa. World Archaeology 39: pp. 355-370.
Denham, T.P., S.G. Haberle, C. Lentfer, R. Fullagar, J.
Field, M. Therin, N. Porch and B. Winsborough 2003.
Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands
of New Guinea. Science 301: pp.189-193.
Department of Environment and Conservation
(DEC) 2007. The Kuk Early Agricultural Site: A
cultural landscape. World Heritage Nomination,
Port Moresby: Department of Environment and
Conservation, Government of Papua New Guinea.
Golson, J. 1977. No room at the top: Agricultural
intensification in the New Guinea Highlands.
In J. Allen, J. Golson and R. Jones, eds, Sunda
and Sahul: Prehistoric studies in Southeast Asia,
Melanesia and Australia, pp. 601-38. London:
Academic Press.
Golson, J. and P. Swadling 1998. The nomination
of KUk for inclusion on the World Heritage Listing.
In A. Strathern and P.J. Stewart, eds, Kuk
Heritage: Issues and debates in Papua New
Guinea, pp. 1-18. Port Moresby: PNG National
Museum, Townsville: Centre for Pacific Studies
and Pittsburgh: Okari Research Group.
Ketan, J. 1998. An Ethnohistory of Kuk.
Port Moresby: National Research Institute.
Ketan, J. and J. Muke. 2001. A site management
plan for the Kuk World Heritage project in Papua
New Guinea. Port Moresby: UNESCO (National
Commission PNG) and UPNG.
Mandui, H. 1998. Kuk Swamp at present –
Technical considerations. In A. Strathern and P.J.
Stewart, eds, Kuk Heritage: Issues and debates in
Papua New Guinea, pp. 42-53. Port Moresby: PNG
National Museum, Townsville: Centre for Pacific
Studies and Pittsburgh: Okari Research Group.
Muke, J. 1998. The death (and re-birth) of Kuk:
A progress report on the recent developments at
the Kuk prehistoric site. In A. Strathern and P.J.
Stewart, eds, Kuk Heritage: Issues and debates in
Muke, J. 2000. Ownership of ideas and things:
A case study of the politics of the Kuk prehistoric
site. In K. Whimp and M. Busse, eds. Protection
of Intellectual, Biological and Cultural Property in
Papua New Guinea, pp. 96-115. Canberra: Asia
Pacific Press and Port Moresby: Conservation
Melanesia Inc.
Muke, J., T.P. Denham and V. Genorupa 2007.
Nominating and managing a World Heritage Site
in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. World
Archaeology 39: pp. 324-338.
Muke, J., T.P. Denham and J. Mangi Submitted.
Kuk Phase 8 – Heritage Implications. In J. Golson, T.P. Denham, P. Swadling and J. Muke (eds)
10,000 years of agriculture at Kuk Terra Australis.
Canberra: ANU E Press.
Strathern, A.J. and P.J. Stewart. 1998. eds,
Kuk Heritage: Issues and debates in Papua New
Guinea. Port Moresby: PNG National Museum,
Townsville: Centre for Pacific Studies and Pittsburgh: Okari Research Group.
Summerhayes, G.R., M. Leavesley, A. Fairbairn,
H. Mandui, J. Field, A. Ford and R. Fullagar 2010.
Human adaptation and plant use in highland New
Guinea 49,000 to 44,000 years ago. Science 330:
pp. 78-81.
UNESCO 2009. Decisions adopted at the 32nd
session of the World Heritage Committee (Quebec City, 2008). WHC-08/32.COM/24Rev. Paris:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Mandui, H. 2006. What is the future of our past?
Papua New Guineans and cultural heritage. In I.
Lilley, ed. Archaeology in Oceania: Australia and
the Pacific Islands, pp. 379-382. Oxford: Blackwell.
Moutu, A. 1998. The Kuk archaeological heritage
and the Kawelka landowners: An anthropological
view of some pertinent issues. In A. Strathern and
P.J. Stewart, eds, Kuk Heritage: Issues and debates in
103
4
The Kokoda Initiative, Papua New Guinea
Australian Kokoda Taskforce Secretariat, Australian Government, Canberra
Australia is supporting Pacific Island Countries to
strengthen implementation of the World Heritage
Convention in the Pacific Region. A major component of support to Papua New Guinea is provided by
the Kokoda Initiative. The Kokoda Initiative is a bilateral partnership programme between Papua New
Guinea and Australia working towards protection of
the Owen Stanley Ranges and Kokoda Track region
while improving the lives of the people who live in
the region. Papua New Guinea included the region
on its World Heritage Tentative List in June 2006 as
a “mixed cultural and natural site covering a significant proportion of the Owen Stanley Ranges near
Port Moresby and potentially including the Kokoda
Track, Managalas Plateau and Mount Victoria and
Mount Albert Edward region”. Through the Kokoda
Initiative, Australia and PNG are working together to
achieve their shared vision of sustainable economic
and social development of this important region and
protection of its significant natural, cultural and historic heritage values, including a feasibility study for
possible, future World Heritage nomination.
The Kokoda Initiative is implemented under the Second
Joint Understanding (2010-2015) on the Owen Stanley
Ranges, Brown River Catchment and Kokoda Track Region,
signed by both governments in July 2010. The Second
Joint Understanding is available by download at: (http://
www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/pubs/
second-joint-understanding.pdf). The Second Joint Understanding builds on the achievements made by Papua New
Guinea and Australia under the 2008 Joint Understanding
on the Owen Stanley Ranges, Brown River Catchment and
Kokoda Track Region. Recent achievements of the Kokoda
Initiative are summarised in the 2010-11 Annual Report
for the Initiative. The Annual Report is available at: http://
www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/kokoda/
pubs/10-11-annrep.pdf.
Goals agreed under the Second Joint Understanding are:
A safe and well-managed Kokoda Track, which honours its
wartime historical significance and protects and promotes
its special values.
104
1. E nhanced quality of life for landowners and
communities through improved delivery of basic
services, income generation and community
development activities.
2. T he wise use and conservation of the catchment
protection area, including the Kokoda Track,
and its natural and cultural resources and values.
3. B
uilding national and international tourism
potential of the Owen Stanley Ranges and Kokoda
Track Region, supported by a possible future
World Heritage nomination.
4. W
orking with communities, landowners, industry
and all levels of government to ensure that
activities established under the Kokoda Initiative
are sustained into the future.
To achieve the goals of the Kokoda Initiative, the Papua
New Guinea and Australian governments are working
together to support the Kokoda Track Authority’s best
practice management of the Kokoda Track and trekking
operations and protection of the special historical heritage
values of the Track, in conjunction with the local communities (Goal 1).
The Kokoda Initiative is improving basic services for local
communities living along the Kokoda Track, including
health, education, water, sanitation and infrastructure,
through the Kokoda Development Program. Income generation and other community development activities are
also being implemented. The focus of these activities will
extend over time to include local communities in the surrounding area of the catchment (Goal 2).
The Kokoda Initiative is supporting the Papua New Guinea
Government’s activities to protect the Kokoda Track and
surrounding catchments, consistent with Papua New Guinea’s aim of developing a sustainable development master
plan for the region. Catchments in the region have been
rated as of national significance for Port Moresby’s future
power and water supplies (Goal 3).
Papua New Guinea’s priority activities for identification
and protection of significant heritage values of the Owen
4
View of the Owen Stanley Ranges from the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea. © Volker Scholz
Stanley Ranges region are also being supported under the
Initiative. A preliminary desktop scoping study to identify
outstanding heritage values of the region based on currently available information has been completed by an
expert advisor to the Papua New Guinea Government.
The study identified areas with natural heritage values
of likely international significance in the region, including high altitude sites and some lowland sites. The study
concluded that these and possibly other sites in the region
have potential to justify a future World Heritage nomination. The study also found, however, that large parts of the
region are data deficient with significant gaps in knowledge and uncertainties.
In response to the preliminary desktop study, the Papua
New Guinea Government is proposing to implement a programme of regional biodiversity surveys supported by the
Kokoda Initiative and other funding provided by the United
Nations Development Program’s Global Environment Facility. These surveys are intended to address key gaps and
uncertainties and provide detailed spatial, biodiversity and
other relevant information to inform Papua New Guinea’s
land use planning and management decision making for
protection and sustainable development of the region. The
surveys will provide an information base for assessment of
significant natural heritage of the region and feasibility for
a future World Heritage nomination. The feasibility study
will encompass key aspects for developing a nomination,
including identification and comparative global assessment of outstanding universal value and arrangements for
protection and management to meet requirements of the
Convention. The feasibility study will be available for consideration by the PNG Government as part of any future
decision on whether to progress a World Heritage nomination of the region.
The Papua New Guinea Government’s proposed approach
to future protection and conservation of the region’s significant natural resource and heritage assets involves a
combination of enhanced land use planning, protection
under existing or amended legislation, and negotiated
agreements with traditional landowners for their management of customary land to achieve renewable resource use
and conservation outcomes in exchange for access to community development opportunities and ecosystem service
benefits. Likely benefit streams include water and power
supply levies and carbon sequestration and biodiversity
conservation payments.
The Kokoda Initiative is supporting Papua New Guinea’s
activities to develop a policy framework and implementation plan for regional tourism development of the Owen
Stanley Ranges region. The tourism assets of the region
include sites of heritage significance. For example, the
Kokoda Track is Papua New Guinea’s premier tourism destination. The region’s outstanding biodiversity assets are of
105
4
The Kokoda Initiative, Papua New Guinea Australian Kokoda Taskforce Secretariat
potential significance for tourism as well contributing to
the Tentative List entry. The tourism framework will inform
the development of the future sustainable development
master plan, and is expected to underpin future economic
and community development of the region (Goal 4).
Capacity building is fundamental to achieving and maintaining the agreed vision and goals of the Second Joint
Understanding and underpinning the long-term sustainability of the Kokoda Initiative. Capacity building activities
implemented by the Kokoda Initiative include in-country
support and mentoring by specialist advisors, leadership
and technical training both in-country and in Australia,
strategic placements and exchange visits with counterpart
agencies, and provision of technical and other expert assistance as needed. Through the Initiative, Australia is supporting capacity building relevant to Papua New Guinea’s
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. This
106
includes provision of an expert in-country World Heritage advisor, counterpart support and mentoring through
volunteer placements, specialist training and skills transfer
in spatial systems and database development relevant to
heritage identification and management, access to Australia’s World Heritage expertise relevant to implementation of the Convention and World Heritage property conservation and management, specialist technical training,
exchange visits and communications support (Goal 5).
In addition to the World Heritage support provided through
the Kokoda Initiative, Australia is assisting Papua New
Guinea to strengthen its governance and management
structures for World Heritage and to establish protection
and management arrangements for the Kuk Early Agricultural World Heritage site through activities supported by
Australian Funds In Trust held by UNESCO and AusAID’s
Pacific Public Sector Linkages Program.
4
OPPOSITE: Village on the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea. © Volker Scholz
ABOVE: Community performance along the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea. © Volker Scholz
107
4
UNESCO’s World Heritage Programme for
Small Island Developing States and the
Global Strategy
Ron VAN OERS, Coordinator of the WH Programme for SIDS, UNESCO World Heritage Centre
The Global Strategy for a Credible, Representative
and Balanced World Heritage List was adopted by
the World Heritage Committee in 1994, in Santa
Fé (USA), in view of growing imbalances between
inscribed cultural and natural properties that became
apparent since the early 1980s.32 After its adoption,
the World Heritage Centre proceeded with the development of Regional Action Plans focusing on World
Heritage activities in the underrepresented regions
of Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and the Caribbean.
At its twenty-second session, in Kyoto in 1998, the
World Heritage Committee examined and adopted
the first “Global Strategy Progress Report, Synthesis and Action Plan for a representative and credible
World Heritage List”.33 At the twenty-third session of
the World Heritage Committee, in Morocco in 1999,
multi-year regional plans of action for the implementation of the Global Strategy in Africa, the Pacific and
the Caribbean, among others, were adopted that followed up on the Action Plan of 1998.34
In the new millennium two major meetings were held in
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) regions to discuss
the development of new, updated regional action plans in
World Heritage prior to the launch of the World Heritage
Programme for SIDS in 2005. In the Caribbean, representatives of twenty Caribbean States Parties and Associated
Territories gathered at the Conference on the Development
of a Caribbean Action Plan in World Heritage,35 held in Castries, Saint Lucia in February 2004.36 In the Pacific a similar
meeting was held at Tongariro National Park, New Zealand,
in October 2004, with representatives of 14 Pacific Island
Countries, as well as representatives from Australia, New
Zealand, French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Rapa Nui
32. The Global Strategy for a balanced, representative and credible World
Heritage List is an action programme designed to identify and fill the
major gaps in the World Heritage List. The Global Strategy relies on
regional and thematic definitions and analyses of categories of heritage
of outstanding universal value, encourages more countries to become
State Parties to the World Heritage Convention and to develop nominations of properties for inscription on the List.
33. Document WHC-98/CONF.203/18.
34. Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/11.
35. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/18/
36. Document WHC-03/28.COM/INF.16.
108
(Easter Island, Chile), which developed an Action Plan for
the implementation of the World Heritage Pacific 2009
Programme.37
In the context of the World Heritage Convention and implementation of the Global Strategy the list of SIDS referred
to in this paper comprises 38 self-governing island states
in the Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Caribbean regions,
which are under-represented on the World Heritage List.38
Establishment of the World Heritage
Programme for SIDS
From 10 to 14 January 2005 the United Nation’s “International Meeting to Review the Implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development
of Small Island Developing States (SIDS)” took place in Port
Louis, Mauritius. At that meeting the author of this paper
was in charge of organizing UNESCO’s Plenary Panel three
on The Role of Culture in the Sustainable Development of
Small Island Developing States. The meeting concluded
with the adoption of the Mauritius Strategy for the Further
Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States.39
Back at the World Heritage Centre and in a direct follow-up
to the Mauritius Meeting, the author designed the World
Heritage Programme for SIDS, aiming at a coordination
of efforts to exchange information on and implement the
Mauritius Strategy within the context of the 1972 World
Heritage Convention and the action plans for the Caribbean and the Pacific. This Programme was adopted at the
29th session of the World Heritage Committee in Durban,
South Africa, in 2005.40
37. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/5/
38. B
eing 5 in Africa (Cape Verde; Comoros; Mauritius; Sao Tomé & Principe; Seychelles), 18 in Asia/Pacific (Cook Islands; Fiji; Kiribati; Maldives;
Marshall Islands; Micronesia; Nauru; Niue; Palau; Papua New Guinea;
Samoa; Singapore; Solomon Islands; Timor-Leste; Tokelau; Tonga;
Tuvalu; Vanuatu), 1 in the Arab States (Bahrain) and 13 in the Caribbean
(Antigua & Barbuda; Bahamas; Barbados; Cuba; Dominica; Dominican
Republic; Grenada; Haiti; Jamaica; St.Kitts & Nevis; St. Lucia; St. Vincent
& Grenadines; Trinidad & Tobago); adapted from www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sids/sidslist.htm
39. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/en/sids
40. Decision 29 COM 5B.
Further to this and at the request of the General Conference,41
UNESCO’s Director-General established an Intersectoral Platform for the Implementation of the Mauritius Strategy for
the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States, under the lead of the Assistant Director-General for
Science. Through this platform, in which the World Heritage
Centre is actively participating, UNESCO is pursuing a strategy aimed at a holistic, integrated approach to sustainable
island living and development with intergenerational and
interregional perspectives.
Of particular relevance to the work on the World Heritage
Committee’s Global Strategy, through this intersectoral
platform the aim is to develop integrated heritage policies
for SIDS, covering natural, cultural, intangible and movable
heritage and contributing to World Heritage activities on
islands in the Caribbean, the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific
Oceans, which are under-represented on the World Heritage List. Among others, this entails technical assistance
for the preparation of Tentative Lists and nominations, and
capacity building of staff and institutions.
Implementation of the World Heritage
Programme for SIDS
SIDS receive support from extra-budgetary sources provided
by Australia, Andorra, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands, all to facilitate Global Strategy-related activities in
the context of the 1972 World Heritage Convention.
Based on performance indicators that were presented to the
World Heritage Committee in July 2005 as part of the proposal to establish a WH Programme for SIDS,42 progress can
be measured in the Programme’s implementation since its
adoption. The main activities carried out and results achieved
up to 2011 are presented in the following table.
Prior to July 2005, there were 29 SIDS States Parties to the
World Heritage Convention. With ratifications by Sao Tomé
& Principe (Africa, in 2006) and the Cook Islands (Pacific, in
2009) this number is now up to 31. As of today, six SIDS have
not ratified the Convention yet: Nauru, Singapore, Timor
41. 33 C/Resolution 3.
42. Document WHC-05/29.COM/5 – Annex 1.
4
Leste, Tokelau and Tuvalu (all Asia/Pacific region) and the
Bahamas in the Caribbean.
Fourteen SIDS had submitted their Tentative List before July
2005 (2 African region, 4 Pacific region, Bahrain, and 7
Caribbean region). As of December 2011, twelve more SIDS
have submitted new Tentative Lists, which is almost a doubling in the last six years (3 from Africa, 7 from the Pacific
and 2 from the Caribbean region).
Nine properties located in SIDS were inscribed on the World
Heritage List after July 2005, with four inscriptions in 2008
alone. The categories of heritage represented by these inscriptions are diverse, including historic centres, cultural landscapes,
an archaeological site and marine properties.
Future Directions
With only six remaining SIDS to ratify the World Heritage
Convention, and Singapore, Timor Leste and the Bahamas
in the process of ratification, this task seems to be nearing
its completion.
The submission of Tentative Lists and number of nominations
under preparation in SIDS in both the Pacific and African
regions is accelerating. The aim is to keep this momentum.
For the Caribbean, with currently 14 properties in SIDS on the
World Heritage List, the emphasis is shifting towards improved
site management and capacity building, as requested by
the States Parties and taken up in the Caribbean Capacity
Building Programme. The CCBP-model was presented in the
Pacific region at the September 2011 Samoa World Heritage
Meeting, with a view to consider possible adaptations of
structure and modalities of operation.
SIDS share similar interests and concerns, such as marine
and coastal management, impacts of climate change, and
issues of sustainable development, and sharing information
and experiences between the different regions is key to an
improved implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Ways of improving communication with access to
information and assistance is needed to include all SIDS in
the World Heritage network and regional capacity building
programmes seem to be the way forward.
Lapaha school children perform the me’etu’upaki (paddle) dance in front of a royal tomb. The dance derives from Futuna/Wallis Island and
was performed for the Tu’i Tonga on ceremonial occasions such as the First Fruits ceremony. © Geoff Clarke
109
4
UNESCO’s World Heritage Programme for Small Island Developing States and the Global Strategy
2005 Performance Indicators
Results as per 2011
• The 1972 World Heritage Convention ratified by
at least three SIDS (Targets: one in the Caribbean, 2 in the Pacific region).
Two SIDS have ratified the Convention: Sao Tomé & Principe
(on 25 July 2006) and Cook Islands (on 16 January 2009).
Twelve SIDS submitted Tentative Lists:
Caribbean region (2)
Barbados (2005); Jamaica (2006)
• New Tentative Lists submitted by at least ten
SIDS (Targets: four of Caribbean, two of African,
and four of Pacific States Parties).
African region (3)
Mauritius (2006); Comoros (2007); Maldives (2008)
Pacific region (7)
Marshall Islands (2005); Papua New Guinea (2006);
Samoa (2006); Kiribati (2007); Tonga (2007), Palau (2007),
Solomon Islands (2008).
Nine properties located in SIDS have been inscribed
onto the World Heritage List:
Caribbean region (2)
• H
istoric Centre of Camagüey, Cuba (2008);
Bridgetown’s Garrison (2011)
• African region (3)
• Increase of the nominations of properties located
in SIDS (no specific target indicated).
• Aapravasi Ghat, Mauritius (2006)
• Le Morne Landscape, Mauritius (2008)
• Cidade Velha, Cape Verde (2009)
• Pacific region (4)
• Kuk Early Agricultural Site, Papua New Guinea (2008)
• Chief Roi Mata’s Domain, Vanuatu (2008)
• Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands (2010)
• Phoenix Islands Protected Area, Kiribati (2010)
Fourteen workshops have been organized:
Caribbean region (4 + 1) in overseas territory
• Dominica (18-22 June 2005)
• Anguilla (20-22 June 2005)
• Jamaica (27-29 June 2005)
• Trinidad & Tobago (8-11 August 2006)
• The Bahamas (5-7 February 2007)
• Ten technical assistance workshops organized for
the development of national strategies in World
Heritage for SIDS (Targets: four in the Caribbean;
two in Africa; and four in the Asia/Pacific region).
• African region (2)
• Sao Tomé and Principe (12-17 January 2009)
Asia/Pacific region (7)
• Marshall Islands (25-29 October 2005)
• F ederated States of Micronesia (31 October4 November 2005)
• Palau (7-9 November 2005)
• Papua New Guinea (20-23 March 2006)
• Solomon Islands (25 March-4 April 2006)
• Kiribati (12-14 December 2007)
• Maldives (1-7 May 2009)
110
SIDS in Africa
SIDS in
Asia/Pacific
SIDS in the
Caribbean
Total
Ratifications 2005
4
13
12
29
2011
5
14
12
31
Tentative Lists 2005
2
5
7
14
2011
5
12
9
26
Inscriptions 2005
2
2 (incl. Bahrain)
12
16
2011
5
6
14
25
4
Fijian Lady Weaving © UNESCO / A. Takahashi
111
4
UNESCO’s World Heritage Programme for Small Island Developing States and the Global Strategy
Niue: a small island state in West Polynesia
Moira Enetama, Niue Department of Cultural Heritage
Niue became a signatory to the World Heritage Convention in 2001. Niue is one of the
world’s largest upraised coral islands of about
260 km2, located about 2400km north east of
New Zealand. The island is very isolated and
the people of Niue and visitors to the island
are reliant on limited air transport. Niueans are
Polynesians and around 1,400 people reside
on the island. The Huvalu Forest Conservation
Area is a protected area in the southeast of
the island is internationally recognised for its
biodiversity and protected Niue’s communitydriven Conservation of the Biodiversity project.
Niue also has a rich cultural history but as yet
there is no full inventory of cultural sites on
the island. The island is slowly recovering from
Cyclone Heta in 2004 which severely damaged
the island’s infrastructure and economy.
Like the communities of other small island
states Niueans face particular issues in protecting their heritage. The country lacks key legal
instruments to protect the preservation of
sites from vandalism, agricultural practices and
ongoing development. Most sites are located
on family (customary lands) and landowners
do not have the same understanding with
those who are tasked to protect our cultural
and natural heritage. There is a lack of ongoing
dialogue and cooperation between landowners and key stakeholders in government, in
particular with tourism operators.
To progress implementation of the Convention
better protection is needed for Niue’s cultural
and natural heritage through formalisation of
draft legal instruments, ongoing awareness
and promotional activities at the community
level. Allocation of sufficient resources into this
area would progress the work forward. Long
term training in Environment Conservation
and Management is also needed with regular
capacity building workshops at the community
level that bring together all the key stakeholders on this small island including Education,
Environment, Museum, Lands and Survey,
Agriculture and Fisheries.
112
The World Heritage Program in the Pacific
could be of increased benefit to the small
island states. Niue has identified areas requiring
immediate attention and the Program should
provide the opportunity to learn from the
experience of other Pacific countries. Niue’s
current focus of development is tourism but
this needs to be pursued with environmental or
social impact assessments.
Niue has not submitted a tentative list to the
World Heritage Committee. Previous consultations have suggested that potential sites on the
island may be of national and not of universal
significance. Without proper research and
identification of values, Niue cannot progress
further to meet the WHC nominating requirements and the World Heritage Program needs
to provide resources to assist Niue to develop
and finalise its Tentative List. For Niueans,
including those who are residing abroad, this
will increase their appreciation of the values of
their unique heritage.
Pandanus. © UNESCO
4
The bath place of Niue’s former Kings (17th-18th century) © Taoga Niue
113
Author biodata
Anita Smith is a Senior Lecturer in Archaeology and Heritage, La Trobe University, Australia with 20 year research
experience in the Pacific Islands; a consultant to UNESCO
and Pacific Island States in the World Heritage Pacific 2009
Program and co-author of the ICOMOS thematic study
Cultural Landscapes of the Pacific Islands (2007). She was
a member of the Australian delegation to the World Heritage Committee from 2008-2011.
Nicole Baker is a Consultant with interests in environment, climate and biodiversity who worked with the
governments of Bikini Atoll and the Marshall Islands over
a period of 6 years to prepare the World Heritage nomination for Bikini Atoll.
Kasia Gabrys is an Indigenous Engagement Coordinator
at the World Heritage Unit – Cape York Peninsula, Department of Environment and Resources Management, Queensland Government. Her work focuses on environmental
management, Indigenous land use with particular interest
in co-management of protected areas.
Chris Ballard of Australian National University is an archaeologist, anthropologist and historian working in Papua New
Guinea, West Papua and Vanuatu, and principal researcher
for Chief Roi Mata’s Domain, Vanuatu since 2004.
Mike Heywood is natural resource management consultant
with extensive experience in third world conservation and
livelihood projects and acted as Management Advisor for
East Rennell World Heritage site.
Giovanni Boccardi is the Focal Point- Sustainable Develop
ment, Disaster Risk Reduction and Capacity Building, World
Heritage Centre, having joined the World Heritage Centre
in 2001. Between 2004 and 2010 he served as the Chief
of the Asia and Pacific Unit, overseeing the World Heritage
Pacific 2009 Program.
Anaseini Kalougata is the Senior Project Officer (World
Heritage) at the Department of National Heritage, Culture
& Arts in Suva, Fiji. Her background is in Applied Science
(Environmental Science) with interests in cultural and
natural heritage. Since 2005, she has been involved in the
development of Fiji’s first World Heritage nomination, the
Historical Port Town of Levuka.
Stuart Chape is Director – Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Management, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) in Apia, Samoa. Prior to taking
up the position with SPREP in 2005 he was Head – World
Heritage and Protected Areas Programme with the UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, UK.
Geoffrey Clark of the Australian National University is an
archaeologist who has researched the history of islands in
the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, and conducted heritage work on prehistoric sites in Palau and Tonga.
Tim Denham is a Research Fellow in Archaeology at La
Trobe University, Australia. His research focuses on the
emergence and transformation of agriculture in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. He was the lead author and
coordinator of the successful nomination of the Kuk Early
Agricultural site to UNESCO’s World Heritage List (2008).
Luagalau Fo’isagaasina Eteuati-Shon is the Registrar of
the National University of Samoa and holder of a matai (chief)
title. She was the first Chief Executive Officer for the Ministry
of Women in Samoa and held this position for 18 years and
continues to be a strong advocate for gender equality.
Moira Enetama is the Manager, Niue Department of
Cultural Heritage.
114
Paul Dingwall is a New Zealand consultant and science
and technical advisor on World Heritage to UNESCO and
the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Within the Pacific he has undertaken missions in Papua
New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tahiti, Rapa
Nui (Easter Island), the Marshall Islands and the Federated
States of Micronesia.
The Kokoda Taskforce, led by the Australian Department
of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) and overseen by the Governments of
Australia and Papua New Guinea implements that Kokoda
Initiative. The Secretariat is based in the International Heritage
Section, Heritage and Wildlife Division of DSEWPaC and
was established in late 2007, just prior to the signing of the
first Joint Understanding between PNG and Australia on
the Kokoda Track and Owen Stanley Ranges in April 2008.
Ian Lilley is a Professor and Director of Research Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit at the University of
Queensland, Australia, who has worked in Australasian
and Indo-Pacific archaeology and cultural heritage for over
30 years. He is Secretary-General of ICOMOS/ICAHM and
editor of the recent ICOMOS thematic study Early human
expansion and innovation in the Pacific (2010).
International Heritage Section of the Heritage and
Wildlife Division of the Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) is implementing the AusAID-funded
project Strengthening World Heritage & Protected Area
Governance: Solomon Islands & PNG from 2011-2013.
Ngatuaine Maui is an anthropologist and Welfare Director
in the Cook Islands Ministry of Internal Affairs. She has
had a long involvement in Pacific heritage management,
previously having worked in the Ministry of Culture and
represented the Cook Islands at regional meetings.
Richard Matanik is a member of the Vanuatu World Heritage Advisory Group and Lelema World Heritage Committee, involved in the management of Roi Mata Cultural
Tours and of the Chief Roi Mata’s Domain World Heritage
site since 2005 overseeing the tourism enterprise as the
representative of Lelepa Village.
Nivaleti Melekiola is Chairman of the Lapaha Council
Inc. and Lapaha Town Officer and holds a traditional Fale
fa title of the Kingdom of Tonga.
Sipiriano Nemani is Senior Culture Policy Planning
Officer at the Department of National Heritage, Culture
& Arts in Suva, Fiji. He has a background in Anthropology, History and International Relations with interests in
cultural heritage and was recently involved in facilitating
the submission of the World heritage nomination for the
Historical Port Town of Levuka, Fiji’s first World Heritage
nomination.
special interest in sharing information to the communities
of the Pacific Islands. He is and member of a number of
regional cultural organizations.
Tuiolo Schuster is the Principal Capacity Building Officer,
Coordinator, Samoa National heritage Coordinating Committee, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Samoa
and coordinated development of Samoa’s Tentative List.
Salamat Ali Tabbasum was an officer in the Asia and
Pacific Unit of the World Heritage Centre from 2002-2007,
assisting in the implementation of the World Heritage
Pacific 2009 Programme. He is completing his PhD at Cambridge University, UK.
Akatsuki Takahashi has been the Programme Specialist
for Culture at the UNESCO Office for the Pacific States,
Samoa since January 2010. She is in charge of the coordination and implementation of the culture programme
for sixteen member and one associate member states of
UNESCO in the Pacific with focus on the UNESCO Conventions in Culture. Previously, she was at the Executive
Office of the Culture Sector at UNESCO Headquarters
(2001-2009).
Justina Nicholas is the Heritage Manager with the Cook
Islands Ministry of Culture.
Elisaia Talouli is Assistant CEO, Chair of the Samoa Natio
nal heritage Coordinating Committee, Ministry of Natural
Resources & Environment, Samoa.
Adi Meretui Ratunabuabua is the Fiji World Heritage
focal point in the Fiji Ministry of Education, National Heritage, Culture & Arts. President of the Pacific Islands Museums Association (PIMA) a co-founder of ICOMOS Pasifika
and soon joins the University of the South Pacific as the
Pacific Heritage Hub Manager.
Senator Ariihau Richard Tuheiava is a Senator in the
Government of France representing French Polynesia and a
past President of Na Papa E Va’u, the community organization leading development of the world heritage nomination for the site of Taputapuätea/Te Po, Valley of Öpoa in
French Polynesia.
Christian Reepmeyer of the Australian National University researches prehistoric interaction of communities in
the Indo-Pacific region using geochemical methods and is
teaching in World Heritage in the Asia-Pacific region.
Ron Van Oers has worked at UNESCO’s World Heritage
Centre since 2000. He was the Chief of Unit for Latin
America & the Caribbean from 2003-2005 and since 2005
coordinator of the World Heritage Cities Programme and
the Small Island Developing States Programme
Diana Roma has been the National Programme Officer
– World Heritage in the UNESCO Office for the Pacific
States, Samoa since 2011. Prior to this she was with the
UNDP Multi-country Office, Apia and a Policy Analyst at
the Samoa Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Women,
Community and Social Development before moving to the
UNDP Multi-country Office, Apia.
Christophe Sand is the Director of the Institute of New
Caledonian and Pacific Archaeology in Nouméa and president of ICOMOS Pasifika. His work as an archaeologist over
the past three decades has focused on Southern Melanesia
and Western Polynesia. He has published widely, with a
Topie Warry has long-term experience in the tourism
industry in Vanuatu and a member of the Lelema World
Heritage Committee, Vanuatu since 2005, with specific
responsibilities for the Roi Mata Cultural Tour as the representative of Mangaliliu Village.
Meredith Wilson is an Associate with Stepwise Heritage
and Tourism Pty Ltd, Australia who has worked extensively
on cultural heritage management by Indigenous communities in Vanuatu and Australia was coordinator on Vanuatu’s
World Heritage nomination project for Chief Roi Mata’s
Domain, Vanuatu
115
Published within the
World Heritage Series
World Heritage
1
manuals
Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites:
a Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers
Gestión del turismo en sitios del Patrimonio Mundial:
Manual práctico para administradores de sitios del Patrimonio Mundial
(In English) November 2002; (In Spanish) May 2005
2
Investing in World Heritage: Past Achievements, Future Ambitions
3
Periodic Report Africa
Rapport périodique pour l’Afrique
papers
4
Proceedings of the World Heritage Marine Biodiversity Workshop,
Hanoi, Viet Nam. February 25–March 1, 2002
papers
5
World Heritage
papers
6
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002
World Heritage
papers
7
Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of Conservation
Proceedings from the Ferrara workshop, November 2002
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
papers
papers
papers
8
(In English) December 2002
(In English and French) April 2003
(In English) May 2003
Identification and Documentation of Modern Heritage
(In English with two papers in French) June 2003
(In English) July 2004
(In English with conclusions and recommendations in French) August 2004
Mobilizing Young People for World Heritage
Proceedings from the Treviso workshop, November 2002
Mobiliser les jeunes pour le patrimoine mondial
Rapport de l’atelier de Trévise, novembre 2002
(In English and French) September 2003
World Heritage
116
papers
9
Partnerships for World Heritage Cities – Culture as a Vector for Sustainable
Urban Development. Proceedings from the Urbino workshop, November 2002
(In English and French) August 2004
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
10
Monitoring World Heritage
Proceedings from the Vicenza workshop, November 2002
11
Periodic Report and Regional Programme – Arab States 2000–2003
Rapports périodiques et programme régional – Etats Arabes 2000–2003
12
The State of World Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region 2003
L’état du patrimoine mondial dans la région Asie-Pacifique 2003
13
Linking Universal and Local Values:
Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage
L’union des valeurs universelles et locales :
La gestion d’un avenir durable pour le patrimoine mondial
papers
papers
papers
papers
(In English) September 2004
(In English) September 2004
(In English) October 2004; (In French) July 2005
(In English with the introduction, four papers and the conclusions and recommendations in French)
October 2004
World Heritage
14
papers
Archéologie de la Caraïbe et Convention du patrimoine mondial
Caribbean Archaeology and World Heritage Convention
Arqueología del Caribe y Convención del Patrimonio Mundial
(In French, English and Spanish) July 2005
World Heritage
15
papers
Caribbean Wooden Treasures
Proceedings of the Thematic Expert Meeting on
Wooden Urban Heritage in the Caribbean Region
4–7 February 2003, Georgetown – Guyana
(In English) October 2005
World Heritage
World Heritage
16
papers
17
papers
World Heritage at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress
Durban (South Africa), 8–17 September 2003
Promouvoir et préserver le patrimoine congolais
Lier diversité biologique et culturelle
Promoting and Preserving Congolese Heritage
Linking biological and cultural diversity
(In French and English) December 2005
World Heritage
18
papers
Periodic Report 2004 – Latin America and the Caribbean
Rapport périodique 2004 – Amérique Latine et les Caraïbes
Informe Periodico 2004 – América Latina y el Caribe
(In English, French and Spanish) March 2006
World Heritage
19
papers
Fortificaciones Americanas y la Convención del Patrimonio Mundial
American Fortifications and the World Heritage Convention
(In Spanish with the foreword, editorial, programme, opening ceremony and seven papers in English)
December 2006
117
Published within the World Heritage Series
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
20
Periodic Report and Action Plan – Europe 2005-2006
Rapport périodique et plan d’action – Europe 2005-2006
21
World Heritage Forests
Leveraging Conservation at the Landscape Level
papers
papers
22
papers
(In English and French) January 2007
Climate Change and World Heritage
Report on predicting and managing the impacts of climate change
on World Heritage and Strategy to assist States Parties to implement
appropriate management responses
Changement climatique et patrimoine mondial
Rapport sur la prévision et la gestion des effets du changement climatique sur le
patrimoine mondial et Stratégie pour aider les États parties à mettre en oeuvre
des réactions de gestion adaptées
(In English and French) May 2007
World Heritage
World Heritage
23
papers
24
papers
Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit
Assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites
L’art rupestre dans les Caraïbes
Vers une inscription transnationale en série sur la Liste du patrimoine
mondial de l’UNESCO
Rock Art in the Caribbean
Towards a serial transnational nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List
Arte Rupestre en el Caribe
Hacia una nominación transnacional seriada a la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial
de la UNESCO
(In French, English and Spanish) June 2008
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
World Heritage
25
papers
26
papers
27
papers
28
papers
World Heritage and Buffer Zones
Patrimoine mondial et zones tampons
(In English and French) April 2009
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
A Handbook for Conservation and Management
Managing Historic Cities
Gérer les villes historiques
Navigating the Future of Marine World Heritage
Results from the first World Heritage Marine Site Managers Meeting
Honolulu, Hawaii, 1–3 December 2010
Navegando el Futuro del Patrimonio Mundial Marino
Resultados de la primera reunión de administradores de sitios marinos
del Patrimonio Mundial, Honolulu (Hawai), 1–3 de diciembre de 2010
Cap sur le futur du patrimoine mondial marin
Résultats de la première réunion des gestionnaires des sites marins
du patrimoine mondial, Honolulu (Hawaii), 1er–3 décembre 2010
(In English) May 2011; (In Spanish) December 2011; (In French) March 2012
118
World Heritage
29
papers
Human Evolution: Adaptations, Dispersals and Social Developments (HEADS)
World Heritage Thematic Programme
Evolución Humana: Adaptaciones, Migraciones y Desarrollos Sociales
Programa Temático de Patrimonio Mundial
(In English and Spanish) June 2011
World Heritage
World Heritage
30
Adapting to Change
The State of Conservation of World Heritage Forests in 2011
31
Community development through World Heritage
papers
papers
32
World Heritage
papers
World Heritage
papers
33
(In English) October 2011
Assessing Marine World Heritage from an Ecosystem Perspective:
the Western Indian Ocean
(In English) June 2012
Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Africa
(In English) July 2012
119
World Heritage
papers
For more information contact:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP France
Tel : 33 (0)1 42 68 15 71
Fax : 33 (0)1 45 68 55 70
E-mail : [email protected]
http://whc.unesco.org

File - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Transcription

Similar documents

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

For Adding to the World Heritage List

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

Virtual 3D Reconstruction of Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Summer-2016 - The Canadian Heritage of Quebec

PILSA Verbatim article - Pacific Islands Law Students Association

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Work on

Sustainable management of the World Heritage Site, Bryggen.